Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SWAVESEY BYE-WAYS BILL [LORDS]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

British Youth Council

Mr. Leigh: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the public funding of British Youth Council activities abroad in the last financial year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Raymond Whitney): The funding of the international activities of the British Youth Council is the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
In the last financial year, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant to the British Youth Council was just short of £40,000, which enabled the council to undertake 12 overseas projects in 11 countries.

Mr. Leigh: Is my hon. Friend aware that the two largest political membership organisations of the council—the Federation of Conservative Students and the Young Conservatives—have withdrawn their membership because of Left-wing bias in the council? Does he think it right that the taxpayer, in the shape of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, should finance junkets to visit east European and Soviet countries, and, in one instance, to visit Havana to meet the youth wing of the World Peace Council, which has been described by the Foreign Office as a disguised arm of Soviet foreign policy?

Mr. Whitney: We shall certainly continue to monitor the activities of the British Youth Council. I should say to my hon. Friend that, in addition to visits to Communist countries, the British Youth Council visits a number of non-Communist countries, but that is very much an issue that we shall keep under careful review. I should also point out that 40 non-political youth organisations continue to be in membership.

Mr. Deakins: Is it not a fact—and will the Minister confirm — that the British Youth Council is in the forefront of activity designed to foster and improve the interests of young people in this country in international

contacts with young people throughout the world? Will he therefore reject the allegations made by his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), and back the work that the British Youth Council is undertaking on behalf of all the young people of this country?

Mr. Whitney: Certainly an important function is to coordinate youth activities in this country domestically and internationally, which is, of course, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's particular area of concern, but all those activities should be centred on genuine international co-operation. The British Youth Council should be careful to eschew political activities which are more appropriately the function of political parties than of this youth organisation.

Ms. Clare Short: Is the Minister aware that the general secretary of the British Youth Council is a boy scout, that the previous general secretary was also a boy scout and that virtually every youth organisation in Britain is affiliated to the British Youth Council, including organisations such as the scouts, the guides, the girls' brigade and so on, and that it would be absolutely wrong for the Young Conservatives to have the veto on the work of this important youth organisation?

Mr. Whitney: I am aware of the facts which the hon. Lady draws to the attention of the House, but I repeat that it is important that the British Youth Council conducts its activities in those affairs which are appropriate to an international youth organisation. I assure the hon. Lady that the monitoring of those activities will remain the province of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. George Robertson: As the Secretary of State is about to embark on a Foreign Office-sponsored junket to Moscow, will it be borne in mind that in present times of tension there is much to be said for continuing a dialogue with both East and West? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that most of the work done by the BYC is designed to foster a community of interest between East and West, which can only be in the interests of us all?

Mr. Whitney: The Government certainly recognise the value of establishing a dialogue between East and West. I much hope that the response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in Moscow will reflect the value of that effort.

Mr. Terlezki: I am in full agreement with establishing a dialogue between East and West, especially among young people, but should it not be a two-way traffic, and should not the Soviet Union respect, observe and practice—rather than only preach—the Helsinki agreement?

Mr. Whitney: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend.

Argentina

Mr. Tom Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty''s Government's relations with the Government of Argentina.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): As we have often made clear, we are ready for official talks with the Argentine Government on the normalisation of our


relations. Such talks cannot include discussion of sovereignty over the Falklands. The preparatory exchanges which we initiated through the protecting powers are continuing; their details must remain confidential. Our aim in the talks will be to make progress on a range of practical questions, but it will be difficult to restore full diplomatic relations until the Argentines have formally declared a cessation of hostilities.

Mr. Clarke: How long is the Fortress Falklands policy to continue, given the enormous drain not least on our defence resources? Now that there is a new regime in Argentina, should not the Government be big enough to restore normal diplomatic relations in their fullest sense?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question of any Fortress Falklands policy. The airfield is being constructed substantially to meet the recommendations of Lord Shackleton, which were made for strong economic and developmental reasons. Its role in facilitating rapid reinforcement of the islands is only secondary to that. But, as I have made plain, there is no question of negotiation over sovereignty. Against that background, as soon as the new democratic Government were elected in the Argentine, we made plain our intention to try to move towards the establishment of normal diplomatic relations, as I indicated in my earlier reply.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not more normal to advocate a Munich before a war rather than afterwards? Is my right hon. and learned Friend on his guard against the gnawing of rats who want to surrender by diplomacy the sovereignty that was defended by arms? Is it not a complete red herring to suggest that the defence of the Falklands is too expensive once the airfield is there?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's last point is manifestly right. I emphasised in my original answer and subsequently that there can be no question of discussing the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. It is on that basis that the other contacts I described have taken place.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the long-term best interests of the Falkland islanders and, indeed, the security of the Falkland Islands can be ensured only within an international framework in which Argentina plays some part?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is obviously in the interests not only of the Falkland islanders but of the Argentines and ourselves that we should take steps towards restoring normal relations between the two countries, including diplomatic relations, on the basis that I have described.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right and learned Friend bear in mind that the undertaking that he has reiterated at the Dispatch Box today not to discuss sovereignty at all with the Argentines makes it impossible for them to negotiate any of the other issues that he has outlined today? Will he therefore make it crystal clear to all of us why the Government believe that sovereignty may not be discussed, or even put on an open agenda?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government take the plain view that to embark on a discussion of sovereignty in those talks or in any other way would not be helpful to the objective that my hon. Friend has in mind. If my hon. Friend is interested—as many hon. Members are—in making progress towards restoring more normal relations, he should accept that those talks should be directed not to

the question of sovereignty but to the many other issues upon which it is possible to rebuild confidence and relationships between the two countries.

Mr. Dalyell: American interest rates having gone up since the Cartagena conference, what is the former Chancellor's, or Her Majesty's Government's, assessment of the real danger that now exists, given the attitude of the hardliners at Cartagena, of great pressure on the Argentine Government and perhaps on other Latin American Governments to default, given their domestic problems?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Negotiations between the Argentine Government and any other Latin American Governments and their creditors must remain a matter for the parties themselves. Plainly, the IMF has a role to play in that, and economic policies to reduce interest rates, on the desirability of which we focused at the London economic summit, would have their part to play.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the visit of two honourable but foolish Members to Argentina may well lead the Argentine Government to think that we are willing to negotiate although we are still nominally at war? Is it not time for the Argentine Government to give way on that factor so that real discussions can take place? Until such time we can discuss nothing.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The presence of some of our honourable colleagues in Argentina arises from the invitation of the Argentine Senate. They are not officially inspired, nor are they intermediaries. The answers that I am giving about the Government's policies represent those policies. I agree that it will be difficult to move in the direction that my hon. Friend and many others would wish so long as Argentina does not formally declare a renunciation of hostilities.

Mr. Healey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, contrary to the impression that he sought to give to the House in an earlier answer, military spending on the Fortress Falklands policy is costing £2 million a year for every family of islanders and is imposing a serious strain on our armed services? Does he agree that since it is now two years since the end of the fighting and six months since Argentina elected a democratic Government who opposed the invasion and have renounced the use of force in pursuing their claim to the Falklands, it is long past the time when the Government should have restored normal diplomatic relations and started to negotiate about all the outstanding issues between our two countries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot share the right hon. Gentleman's view of this matter. He must understand that the expenditure still being incurred on the construction of the airfield is directed towards that construction which, as I have already said, has a substantial developmental value. Once that has been completed, it should be possible to reduce the levels of permanently stationed forces on the islands, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in the defence White Paper. The airfield will remain available for developmental value.
We wish to establish a framework within which talks can take place with a view to securing more normal relationships, but that matter has to be handled very carefully. It would be wrong to jeopardise the prospect of those talks by not making it plain that sovereignty was to be excluded from them.

Mr. Botha (United Kingdom Visit)

Mr. Loyden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Commonwealth countries concerning the recent visit of Mr. Botha to the United Kingdom.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: A number of Commonwealth Governments made their views known to us both before and after the visit. We stressed that the visit signalled no change in policy on our part. It was recognised by many, although by no means all, as a useful opportunity to make our views plain on a number of issues of common concern to Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Loyden: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the visit was an insult to the majority of people in Britain and an insult to most Commonwealth countries? If the Government are serious in their attitude to apartheid, why does the right hon. Gentleman not make a categorical statement that in no circumstances will Coastguard be sold to South Africa?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have received no approach to supply to South Africa aircraft of the kind described by the hon. Gentleman. Any application for an export licence will be examined on its merits. The Government will, of course, fulfil their obligations under the arms embargo.
The hon. Gentleman must be living in a different world from the great majority of hon. Members. To say that that visit could be described as an insult to British people shows a complete failure to appreciate the reality of the matter. It was right, and was widely regarded as right, that my right hon. Friend should take that opportunity of making plain to the South African Government our strongly held views on many South African questions. If it is right—as I am sure it is—for us to engage in discussion and dialogue with a range of other countries, it cannot possibly be wrong to take that opportunity to speak to the South African Government.

Sir Peter Blaker: Has my right hon. and learned Friend yet heard any adverse comment from the Opposition on the fact that Mr. Botha was received by the Pope? Are not the Opposition guilty once more of double standards?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: rose—

Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does the point of order relate to this matter.

Mr. Healey: Yes, it relates directly to this question. Is it customary for His Holiness the Pope to be held responsible for his or anyone else's behaviour?

Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member must take responsibility for his questions.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I accept responsibility for answering for the Government. In that respect I am glad to endorse what my right hon. Friend said—that the Opposition in this matter, as in so many others, are guilty of double standards.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order afterwards.

Mr. Eastham: The Foreign Secretary stated that several Commonwealth countries referred to certain issues. Did one matter concern Mr. Nelson Mandela, who has now been imprisoned for 20 years? What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude to that issue?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: A number of Commonwealth countries have urged us to use our influence with South Africa. The meeting provided an opportunity for doing that. Mr. Nelson Mandela's case was raised during that meeting and we raised the matter in a general statement of our strongly held views on apartheid.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is not jaw-jaw better than war-war in the case of South Africa and Argentina? Is not personal contact in these matters far more valuable than megaphone diplomacy? Should not our Commonwealth friends be told that it would serve their interests far better if they spoke personally to Mr. Botha and expressed their detestation—we all share that feeling—for his internal policies rather than to engaging in the present boycotting?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is correct. As I have said, members of the Commonwealth have urged us to use our influence in South Africa. The visit provided an opportunity to do that. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the fact that we took that opportunity.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this country receives representatives of unsavoury Commonwealth Governmnents not least Mr. Mugabe, who has detained a former Prime Minister of his country for more than six months without bringing him to court? Will my right hon. and learned Friend pay tribute to the part that South Africa plays to the benefit of the whole of southern Africa by way of food production and economic aid? Will he pay tribute also to the agreements that were recently entered into with Mozambique and Angola?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course we attach importance to our relationship with South Africa, but within that context we continue to hold certain constraints on that relationship. We have fully upheld our international obligations to South Africa. We recognise, as my hon. Friend points out, the value of an agreement such as the Nkomati agreement, as a step towards stabilisation and a reduction of tension in South Africa.

Mr. Healey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Mr. Botha's visit was described in The Times as a diplomatic triumph for Mr. Botha and an unmitigated disaster for the blacks in South Africa, and that that view is widely held throughout this country? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman observes the constraints on Britain's relationship with South Africa to which he referred, will he explain how it was possible for a South African officer at the naval base in Simonstown to betray British and NATO defence secrets to the Soviet Union on a scale which is said to be without precedent since the war?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a case the facts of which extend over many years, perhaps even to the period when he was Secretary of State for Defence. I am not prepared to answer a question on that aspect without a great deal of notice. It is foolish to describe the meeting between the two Prime Ministers as a matter of disaster or triumph, victory or defeat. Vital questions arise in southern Africa.


A number of Western and Commonwealth Governments have important views on those matters, which we were able to put direct to the South African Prime Minister and to discuss with him. Nothing but good can flow from that.

Saudi Arabia

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are currently detained in Saudi Arabia; how many complaints he has received about the lack of assistance given to those subjects by the British authorities; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitney: On 24 June there were 27 British citizens detained in Saudi Arabia. I am glad to say that Her Majesty's embassy in Jedda has reported this week that at least seven British prisoners should be released under the Ramadan amnesty which is about to be announced. The embassy expects that one additional British prisoner will be released under a special order.
We have received one complaint from a person who made allegations in general terms about the lack of assistance given to him by a consular officer. We looked into the allegations and were satisfied that the consul had done all that he could to help the prisoner concerned.
The British citizens detained, the majority of whom have been convicted of alcohol offences, represent less than 0·1 per cent. of the 34,000 Britons in Saudi Arabia. Her Majesty's consular officers do all that they can to assist and advise British citizens who disobey Saudi law, but they cannot intervene in the Saudi judicial system unless they have reason to believe that a gross miscarriage of justice may have occurred. They visit all British prisoners there regularly.

Mrs. Short: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not a matter of great concern that there are now more than 20 British citizens in Saudi Arabian prisons? In view of the great concern last August when four British subjects were flogged in Saudi prisons, has the Minister protested to the Saudi authorities about the brutal and inhumane treatment that British subjects have received, and will he issue a list of the people now held in Saudi gaols?

Mr. Whitney: I accept that there is concern on that point, and the Saudi authorities have been made aware that the administration of strokes is abhorrent to British opinion, but they have not been moved by our representations. We understand that the ordeal is intended not to inflict severe pain. It is intended more as a humiliation than as a physical punishment. When we have involved ourselves in this matter, we have discovered that a number of the prisoners concerned have actually preferred that punishment to an extended prison sentence.

Mr. Adley: Have the Government objected to the recent detention of a British military attaché by the Israeli Government?

Mr. Whitney: Yes, Sir.

Gulf States

Mr. Bell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with the Gulf states.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Since his visit to Saudi

Arabia in January, when he had valuable discussions with the King and other Ministers, my right hon. and learned Friend has met the Kuwaiti Foreign Minister on 3 April, the Bahraini Foreign Minister on 13 April and the Omani Foreign Minister on 10 May.
I visited Qatar in April for talks, and on 23 May I met the Qatar Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in London.
In addition, we are in constant touch with the Governments of the Gulf states through Her Majesty's ambassadors.

Mr. Bell: I welcome the Minister's statement. Is he aware that the Iraqi high command announced today that it had struck at two naval targets in the Gulf? Does that not emphasise the serious risks and dangers to British national interests in the Gulf? What assurances can the Minister give that the contacts to which he has referred will continue in the British national interest?

Mr. Luce: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we continue actively to have contact with all those interested in keeping the peace in the Gulf, as well as helping in mediation between the two countries concerned. We are deeply concerned about the events of the past few weeks in that part of the world and are co-operating closely with those states to see whether the atmosphere can be calmed.

Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind that a comprehensive peace settlement in the area remains our prime foreign policy objective, what steps do the Government intend to take to support King Hussein in his peace-making efforts, especially in a period when American foreign policy is completely paralysed?

Mr. Luce: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, that goes rather wider than a question about the Gulf, but I assure him that we and, indeed, the whole European Community remain actively concerned to see progress in the Arab-Israeli dispute. We have a very close relationship with Jordan. If King Hussein puts forward constructive proposals as a basis for a dialogue, we shall certainly encourage and support them.

Mr. Douglas: Can the Minister give some indication of the discussions that we have had with the United States and the Gulf states in relation to freedom of passage through the Gulf and, in particular, the Straits of Hormuz? Will the Minister further say what instructions are given to our vessels there about terms of engagement, and what assurance we can have of the safety of the British flag fleet operating in the Gulf?

Mr. Luce: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Security Council has passed two resolutions, both of which have advocated freedom of navigation in the international waterways of the Gulf. We, with our friends the United States and the European Community, actively supported those resolutions. We want the problem to be resolved in diplomatic terms, and we are putting all our diplomatic efforts in that direction.
The Secretary of State for Transport has put out at least two warnings to shipping about the dangers in the past two months, and the General Council of British Shipping has done the same. We have drawn attention to the heightened risks and tensions in that part of the world, but at the end of the day the matter is for the shipowners themselves.

Mr. Holt: Did my hon. Friend, while holding discussions with the Gulf states, raise with them the


question of the six British subjects who are incarcerated without charge or trial in Libyan gaols by Colonel Gadaffi's regime?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member's question goes rather wide of the Gulf.

Mr. Faulds: Does the hon. Gentleman, and does the Foreign Secretary, accept that nothing will radicalise opinion more effectively in the whole of the Gulf area than American intervention there?

Mr. Luce: I can say clearly that all of us who supported the Security Council resolutions are concerned that there should be freedom of navigation in the international waterways, but that all efforts and priorities should go towards settling this by diplomatic means. That remains our priority.

Mr. George Robertson: As events in the Gulf today as well as in the past few days show that the area could easily become one of maximum sensitivity very quickly, are the Government showing sufficient urgency in bringing together the Soviet Union and the United States of America and to convey to them that they have a joint interest in the crisis? Secondly, are the Government trying some initiative to stop the flow of arms to Iran and Iraq, including spare parts from this country?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be going to Moscow next week. I can say without any doubt that he will raise the problem of the Gulf with the Soviet Union and discuss it with them. We remain in very close touch with the United States on the issue.
Our position on the sale of arms is the same as it has always been. We remain neutral and we do not sell any lethal items. We only wish that other countries would follow our example.

Soviet Union

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with the Government of the Soviet Union since the economic summit.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We remain in regular contact with the Soviet Union on diplomatic channels. I shall be conducting substantial discussions with the Soviet Foreign Minister on a full range of international and bilateral issues when I visit Moscow next week.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not fair to say that, apart from the summit's statement on democratic values, it failed to address the real problems of tension between East and West and, in particular, escalating expenditure on armaments? If the justification for the deployment of cruise in Britain was the deployment of SS20s in Eastern Europe and—

Mr. Holt: What has this to do with economics?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: A great deal. If the deployment of SS24s and SS25s arises from the deployment of cruise in Britain, unless there is control of escalating expenditure on armaments, which is harming the economies of the Western world, will there not inevitably be war?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is sad that the hon. Gentleman's perception of the realities of the situation are as limited as

they are. A great deal of time at the London economic summit was devoted to discussion of East-West relations. The Heads of State and Foreign Ministers devoted much time to the methods that could be followed to make headway on arms control talks. Nothing is a higher priority in the minds of those Western leaders. There was a Western initiative on the table at every arms control negotiation. The summit declaration on East-West relations made it plain that the United States was willing to return to arms control talks anywhere, at any time and without prior conditions.

Mr. Dykes: As this is an international human rights matter, not just an internal domestic policy matter, will my right hon. and learned Friend and Her Majesty's Government continue to press their protests against the treatment of Dr. Sakharov and his wife with as much force as the French have done?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend said, this is a matter about which we are greatly concerned, inside the House and elsewhere. I have mentioned the case on one or more occasion in talks with the Soviet Union. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade mentioned it to a Soviet Minister in Moscow last month. Certainly, the case deserves to be pressed firmly.

Mr. Healey: When the Foreign Secretary is in Moscow, will he make it clear that Her Majesty's Government would support negotiations for the completion of a comprehensive test ban treaty and for a ban on military activity in outer space, both of which have recently been proposed by Mr. Chernenko and could form a useful way of breaking the deadlock between the Soviet Union and the United States in this area?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Both topics deserve discussion in the context of my talks. With regard to armaments in outer space, the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that the North Atlantic Council statement from Washington welcomed the fact that the United States was prepared to embark on discussions on research in that area.

Afghanistan

Mr. Churchill: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Afghanistan.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We should like to see a lasting and peaceful settlement on the basis set out in successive United Nations General Assembly resolutions. We look to the Soviet Union to open the way to such a settlement by declaring its willingness to withdraw. The Soviet military presence has caused immense suffering and destruction. Meanwhile, we shall continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Afghan refugees who are the unfortunate victims of this conflict.

Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. and learned Friend fully aware of the scale of this crime against humanity, perpetrated by the Soviet Union in its occupation of Afghanistan over the past four years, which has forced 4 million people, or one in four of the Afghan population, to flee their homeland to seek sanctuary in Pakistan or Iran? Will my right hon. and learned Friend leave his Soviet hosts next week in no doubt whatever as to the sense of outrage that persists in this country on this subject?


Furthermore, will my right hon. and learned Friend, on his return, take steps to see that British aid and, in consultation with our allies, Western aid to the Afghan nation in its hour of need is increased from its present abjectly abysmal level, including the provision of air defence equipment for the Afghan resistance?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend rightly raised several important questions on this subject. I entirely agree about the tragic impact of the invasion. At least one fifth of the pre-invasion population of Afghanistan have fled their homeland. I entirely agree also about the scale of the Soviet operation there, involving well over 100,000 Soviet troops in that country. I entirely agree about the scale on which this action has been condemned year after year in the United Nations and elsewhere, with overwhelming resolution. I have great sympathy for the remarkable effort of the Afghan people to defend themselves against this foreign invasion. It is clear from the continuing resistance that they are receiving some help. I am not prepared to make any further comments.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is it not time that the Secretary of State explained the role of Stewart Bodman, the British agent who was shot last year in Afghanistan? Is it not an open secret that the British Government are shelling out £3 million per year to the so-called Mujtahidin and other irregular forces in that country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have nothing to add to what I said in answer to a question on 18 June, on the first point, and I am not prepared to add to what I have already said on the second.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Secretary of State explain why the Russians, or anybody else for that matter, should pay much attention to condemnations of crimes against humanity, such as are being committed in Afghanistan, while this Government and British industry are reputed to be the second largest exporter of repressive technology in instruments of torture to tyrannous regimes around the world?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The intemperance of the premise to the hon. Gentleman's question illustrates how misleading it is. To introduce such a concept in this context is totally absurd. The House, the United Nations and the world know that for four years over 100,000 Soviet troops have been deployed in Afghanistan. Quite rightly, that is regarded as indefensible.

Mr. Anderson: When the Foreign Secretary is in Moscow next week, will he raise with the Soviet leaders the question of the outrageous behaviour of the Soviets in Afghanistan? If he does so, will they not throw back at him the policies of the United States in Central America, which the British Government seek to defend in every possible way? Is not the moral stance of the West in regard to areas such as Afghanistan mightily jeopardised by American policy in Central America?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It may well be that that point will be thrown back at me, but neither my position, the position of the West, not any of the causes that we want to advance, will be helped by the hon. Gentleman's attempt, even unconsciously, to draw a parallel between those two questions. That is quite unacceptable.

Iran-Iraq War (Chemical Weapons)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he has been able to obtain from the Iraqi Government that they will cease using chemical weapons in the war with Iran; and whether he has made representations to them following evidence of injuries suffered by a British subject, Mr. Benford, a British Broadcasting Corporation sound recordist, who was exposed to nerve gas while attempting to cover the war in Iran.

Mr. Luce: We regret the injuries suffered by Mr. Bedford. We have already made clear to both sides in the Gulf conflict our strong condemnation of the use of chemical weapons.

Mr. Mikardo: I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. In view of the fact that this is the first verified and significant use of these weapons anywhere in the world for more than half a century, and because the prospect of the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is almost as terrifying as the prospect of the escalation of nuclear weapons, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government, together with other friendly Governments, ought to be seeking to exercise even more influence than they have so far sought to exercise to persuade both sides in this horrendous war to forsake the use of such weapons?

Mr. Luce: I share the hon. Gentleman's views. We have strongly condemned the use of these weapons, and the Governments of both Iran and Iraq are aware of our view. We totally condemn the use of chemical weapons.
In answer to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I should add that there is some evidence that chemical weapons have been used in other parts of the world, including south-east Asia. We are therefore taking a strong lead in the negotiations for a comprehensive agreement at Geneva.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

European Council

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments at the latest European Council meeting.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As hon. Members will know, we reached agreement at Fontainebleau on a lasting and fair settlement of the budget problem which has been under negotiation for the past year. This is a good deal for Britain and for the Community. Heads of Government also set the course for future Community policies on other matters. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making a full statement to the House immediately after Question Time.

Mr. Dykes: I do not wish to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement, but, in the wake of the excellent budget agreement between the United Kingdom and the Community, does my right hon. and learned Friend not feel the need to remind Labour Members and certain other hon. Members that practical measures for working together and for integration in the Community do not in any way lessen intrinsic national sovereignty, and that, indeed, they enhance it? Should we not now get to work to build up one coherent Community, as we should have done aleady?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. As he points out, the settlement of this long-running dispute enables the countries of the Community to get to work on the many measures that can and should be taken to establish and expand the working of the Common Market and to promote closer partnership in the Community.

Mr. Boyes: Is it not amazing and scandalous that at a time when Europe has never been so close to nuclear destruction, when there have never been so many unemployed and so much poverty, time was found to discuss at Fontainebleau such subjects as a European flag, a European anthem, and a European honours list?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman should not conclude that a great deal of time was wasted or taken up in discussing those matters. However, it would be foolish to disregard such matters altogether.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, as a result of the agreement that was reached this week, the amount of money that Britain contributes to the Community will increase? Can he confirm the report in The Times this morning, which says that if the formula that has been adopted for the recalculation of Britain's budgetary contribution had applied in the past four years, we would have contributed and extra £115 million a year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The point that my hon. Friend must understand is that, in the absence of these negotiations being brought to a conclusion, there would have been no system for the abatement of our contribution. As a result of what has now been secured we shall have a substantial and lasting reduction in our contribution. We have made a substantial change in the entire relationship between us and the rest of the Community.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Foreign Secretary respond to figures that have been produced by the Presidency of the European Council and which purport to show that this formula, if it had been in existence in previous years, would have cut our earlier rebates? So that the House can be clear on the matter, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the VAT expenditure share formula is calculated? Will he clarify how he is able to describe the settlement, which will produce smaller rebates, as a good deal for Britain.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman fails to address himself to the central point. Under the system that has existed until now, refunds have had to be negotiated each year. As he has said, that has become increasingly difficult from year to year, as we have seen in regard to our 1983 refund. Under the arrangements thus far, the level of our ad hoc repayments has been declining from year to year and there was no assurance of the existence of any such arrangement this year or in any future year. What is now in place is an automatic system for reduction of our contribution on a durable basis. That is on the basis of a correction. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the basis that has been agreed covers the great bulk of our payments to the Community, since the gap means that our levies and duties are counted as if they were paid at the VAT rate. It means that in any increase in expenditure along those lines we shall pay only 7 per cent., rather than 21 per cent., on a lasting and durable basis. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the conclusion is substantially better

than any alternative that has so far been available. It is overwhelmingly better than the disastrous conclusion that was arrived at by the Labour Government.

House of Lords Select Committee

Mr. Hunter: asked the Secretary of Stale for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports from the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities currently await a Government reply.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): There are no reports from the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities currently awaiting a Government reply.

Mr. Hunter: When ray hon. Friend considers social regulations for road transport, will he bear in mind the importance of equal enforcement by all member states? In the absence of that, member states which try to enforce the regulations will be seriously disadvantaged competitively. What assurances can he give us on that?

Mr. Rifkind: Although that matter is primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, I can assure my hon. Friend that the equal enforcement of regulations in this regard would be an important priority for the Government, for the reasons to which he has rightly drawn attention.

European Union

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions there have been between Ministers in his Department and other European Economic Community Governments on the Spinelli report on European union.

Mr. Rifkind: None, Sir.

Mr. Proctor: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to EC Governments that the British Government do not support any further loss of sovereignity, as would be initiated by acceptance of the Spinelli report on European union, and will not be pushed into a steady slide towards federalism, which is inspired by Communists?

Mr. Rifkind: Although there are some aspects of the Spinelli report to which we do not object, we have made it clear that there are some proposals which we cannot support. I draw special attention to the proposal to phase out the national veto after 10 years and the proposal to increase the powers of the European Parliament. We have made it clear that those are the two main recommendations which we cannot support.

Mr. Aitken: As the Foreign Secretary made some mildly approving noises about such bizarre concepts as a European flag, a European national anthem and a European honours list, will my hon. Friend in mind that those aspects of a possible European union would be anathema to the vast majority of British people?

Mr. Rifkind: Naturally we are prepared to listen carefully to ideas which would be in the interests of the European community as a whole. We have always made it clear that the primary interest of the United Kingdom is to concentrate on practical issues, and practical areas of harmonisation, which would bring undoubted benefit to the people of Britain and to the Community.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that in setting his face against the increase in the powers of the European Parliament he is setting his face against the countless European candidates fielded by his party, who have been calling for an increase in the powers of the European Parliament?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. All of the Conservative candidates for the European elections, including the successful Conservative candidates, fought under the Conservative party manifesto, which makes the views of the Conservative party exceedingly clear.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister amplify that reply and tell us whether his comments apply to the 16 recently elected Conservative Members of the European Parliament, who during the last Parliament voted for the Spinelli report?

Mr. Rifkind: I am aware that there was a free vote in the European Parliament on that matter. A minority of Conservative Members may well have taken a different view on that issue, but at least they do not belong to the Labour group in that Parliament, the vast majority of whose new Members do not even support our membership of the European Community. They were elected under false pretences, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Community Effectiveness

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for increasing the effectiveness of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rifkind: Our ideas for increasing the effectiveness of the European Community and promoting its further development were set out in a paper which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to other Community Heads of Government earlier this month.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Government are more likely to attain objectives that are of real value to the United Kingdom, such as the removal of cross-border formalities and obstacles to trade in invisibles, if we do not indulge in cheap sneering at symbols, which may seem ridiculous to us but which are of considerable importance to people who value European unity?

Mr. Rifkind: We do not underestimate the importance of symbolic matters in the European Community, or elsewhere. We believe that with the full and heavy agenda, to which the Community must address itself in future, it is right to concentrate on the practical areas of integration, which will benefit the peoples of Europe.

Mr. Roy Hughes: May I draw the Minister's attention to the threat to the tinplate sector of the British steel industry caused by a recent EC directive? Will he do what he can to ensure that that directive is put aside?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will wish to address that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have played a prominent role in ensuring that Britain's involvement in reforms of the steel industry are fair and equitable to the British people and with respect to our overall Community obligations.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that two of the most effective proposals to make the European

Community more acceptable to the Scots would be to stop the dumping of raspberries from Poland in the United Kingdom, and to remove the barriers to the sale of Scotch whisky to Greece?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will agree that the views of the Scots about the European Community are likely to be only marginally influenced by raspberries. I accept that the Community is meant to stand for free trade between member countries and that it is right and proper that that should apply throughout all the various sectors, including those of particular importance to Scottish exports.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Park: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in bringing the expenditure on the common agricultural policy within his definition of effective control.

Mr. Rifkind: The March European Council agreed that in future the rate of growth in agriculture spending will be less than that of the own resources base. A few days later Agriculture Ministers took important decisions to cut agriculture prices, reduce milk production, and limit the payment of guaranteed prices for products in, or likely to enter, surplus. A text giving guaranteed effect to the March decision will have to be agreed.

Mr. Park: Although we are to hear the Prime Minister's statement on the latest conference, is it not a fact that today's press reports about the outcome of the conference are almost unanimous that huge sums of money will continue to be poured towards French and German farmers?

Mr. Rifkind: Those are not the press reports that I have seen. The press reports have almost unanimously welcomed the agreement and said that they believe that it is in the United Kingdom's interest and that the Government were right to agree the proposed terms.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since a good deal of money provided under the CAP goes to help the production of food surpluses which we cannot consume, when my hon. Friend discusses these matters will he consider whether some more of the resources under the CAP might be used for conservation and ecological approaches to agriculture and the countryside in order to achieve a better result?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the Community's prime objectives must be to address itself to whatever reforms are necessary to remove the undesirable burden of huge surpluses which are of no interest to the Community or, ultimately, to the farmers who live within the Community. It is right and proper that we should consider using expenditure more sensibly and productively.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister appreciate that this year, despite the spring settlement, agriculture expenditure will exceed available resources by one fifth? Does he not grasp the fact that the only way to bring agriculture spending under control is to reform the structure? We have no hope of that reform if we vote increased own resources for the EEC to waste on ever larger surpluses.

Mr. Rifkind: I recall that in the last year of the Labour Government agriculture spending in the Community


represented 78 per cent. of its total expenditure; today it represents 65 per cent. of its expenditure. Members of the Community have agreed unanimously that it must in future represent a smaller proportion of the Community's expenditure. If the House is fair, it will agree that the Government have achieved far more than Labour Members did in terms of progress and controlling services.

Budget Rebate

Mr. Litherland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what concessions Her Majesty's Government have obtained on the rebate proposals tabled by the President of the Commission at the Brussels summit.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Agreement has now been reached on a lasting, systematic settlement of the budget imbalances problem. The agreement retains the main elements of the text put forward in Brussels in March, but will give the United Kingdom a better deal than was offered at the Brussels summit.

Mr. Litherland: Although events have overtaken the tabling of the question, does the Foreign Secretary agree that, after all the Prime Minister's boasting about a just and lasting settlement, the Government have failed miserably on both counts? It is not just, because we shall still be paying vast sums; it is not lasting, because as soon as the money runs out the Community will be back for more. Is this not just a cut and run after the elections?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is no such thing. The settlement represents a good deal for Britain and the Community. The most important point is that it is a lasting system which can be changed only with the unanimous agreement of the member states. We were offered a far less satisfactory settlement at Brussels. We have now secured a settlement which is better than any previously available, and entirely right.

Mr. Lester: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the increase in own resources is a gradual requirement and a ceiling below which increased spending must be justified.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is right. That is why we also attach importance to the completion of the agreement required at Brussels for the establishment of firm and effective texts for the maintenance of budgetary discipline, and equally the agreement on a reduction in the share of the Community budget being devoted to agricultural expenditure.

Mr. John David Taylor: When the Foreign Secretary referred to the agreement as being a lasting one, and as it is connected to a 1·4 per cent. own resources limit, how long does he expect lasting to last?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As long as it takes—[Interruption]—The right hon. Gentleman must be patient and wait for the rest of my answer, which is, as long as it takes to convince the Government of this country and the House of Commons that a case for change has been made out. A unanimous decision of the European Council and the agreement of the House of Commons are necessary before there can be any change in the 1·4 per cent. 'VAT ceiling that it is proposed to establish. There can be no change in the system now established unless that unanimous agreement is forthcoming.

Mr. Leighton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in relation to the payment of the rebate due to the United Kingdom as agreed at Stuttgart.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Heads of Government agreed that the refund due to the United Kingdom for 1983 should no longer be blocked. Foreign Ministers meeting after the European Council in Fontainebleau yesterday have already adopted the regulations. It now remains for the European Parliament to agree to the transfer.

Mr. Leighton: Is it not a disgrace that after the Prime Minister's noise and bluster she has ended with a whimper, and given away the British position? As there is no control over agricultural spending, and as the Prime Minister has agreed to an increase in own resources, is it not clear that we shall be paying ever more money to the Community in future?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and has been told more than once today, the text agreed at Brussels on budgetary discipline provides for agricultural expenditure to take a gradually declining proportion of the own resources that are available. Moreover, the agreement on own resources will be ratified only when the measures necessary to guarantee the effective application of those principles have been adopted. That is the work now before the Finance Ministers.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after the statement.

European Council (Fontainebleau)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council in Fontainebleau on 25 and 26 June, at which I was accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
I am glad to tell the House that the European Council reached agreement on a fairer and more soundly based system for the United Kingdom's financial contribution to the Community. This is a successful culmination of our long and persistent efforts to correct the budget inequity and to put the United Kingdom's refunds on a lasting basis.
The main features of this agreement are, first, that it provides for a refund of about £600 million in 1984, with the new system in effect thereafter. Under the new system the United Kingdom will get a rebate of 66 per cent. of the gap between our share of VAT and our share of expenditure. This means that, in terms of our marginal net contribution, the United Kingdom will be contributing not about 21 per cent. as we are liable to do at present but about 7 per cent. to new Community expenditure. This arrangement is far better than anything previously on offer and far better than the offer of the other nine member states at the last European Council.
Secondly, this system can be changed only by a unanimous decision by all member Governments and ratified by their Parliaments. The benefits for the United Kingdom will continue unless and until we ourselves agree to change it.
Thirdly, the advantages of the system will be available to us from 1985. We shall have the arbitrary refund of about £600 million for the single year 1984 only. This is a substantially better situation for the United Kingdom than was on offer earlier.
Fourthly, the refunds will be implemented, as we have requested, by reducing the United Kingdom's VAT payments to the Community in each successive year. The House may recall that at the last European Council we reached provisional agreement that measures be taken on budgetary discipline. We considered it essential that the rigorous rules which at present govern budgetary policy in each member state also apply to the budget of the Communities. We went on to add that the Community should fix at the beginning of the Budget procedure the maximum level of expenditure which it considers it must adopt to finance Community policies during the following financial year; and further that net expenditure relating to agricultural markets should increase less than the rate of growth of the own resources base.
Finance Ministers are now working on the precise measures to guarantee the effective application of these principles. In the light of the agreement reached both on the United Kingdom refund and the future control of Community spending, the European Council also agreed that the own resources ceiling should be increased to 1·4 per cent. of VAT. The Government will be prepared in due course, and when the arrangements are in place on budget discipline, to recommend to the House that the own resources ceiling should be increased to 1·4 per cent. of VAT.
However, the net effect of such an increase and of the VAT refunds for the United Kingdom is that, although the ceiling will be increased to 1·4 per cent. for the Community as a whole, the United Kingdom will itself be contributing less than we are at present liable to contribute under the 1 per cent. limit.
It was further agreed that the refund of about £440 million due to the United Kingdom in respect of 1983 should now be released. The Council of Ministers yesterday approved the necessary regulations. It is now for the European Parliament to transfer the funds from the reserve chapter of the budget. We thus have the assurance of the successful implementation of our refunds for 1983, £440 million, 1984, £600 million, and for future years, for as long as the 1·4 per cent VAT ceiling lasts.
The European Council discussed current world political and economic developments. I described the outcome of the London economic summit. President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl spoke about their visits last week to the Soviet Union and Hungary respectively. It was heartening to find that the four keynotes of the London summit—unity, resolve, dialogue and co-operation — were unanimously endorsed as the basis for a secure and constructive relationship with the Soviet Union, which the visit to Moscow by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in July is designed to promote.
The European Council confirmed that the negotiations for the accession of Spain and Portugal should be completed by 30 September 1984. We also discussed the negotiations for the renewal of the Lomé agreement with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. The European Council stressed the importance of bringing these negotiations to an early conclusion.
The European Council also discussed the future development of the Community. We have put forward specific ideas in a paper which I gave before the European Council to other Heads of Government. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I laid particular emphasis on the importance of achieving a genuine Common Market in goods and services, leading to the creation of new jobs throughout the Community.
The outcome of the Council is good for Britain and good for the Community. It will result in Britain's paying for the foreseeable future lower contributions than would have been due under existing arrangements with the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling, it will make possible a relaunching of the Community in which Britain will play a full role, will give an impetus to enlargement, thus strengthening democracy in Spain and Portugal, and remove what has been a constant source of friction in our relations with the Community ever since we joined.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I record our disappointment that yet another summit has passed with no significant reference to the major question of the need to expand employment and develop both the British and the European economies. Clearly, that should be at the top of any agenda for a European Council and I hope, as do many others, that it will be so in future.
The acid test of whether the Prime Minister has obtained a good and just deal for Britain at the summit will be her answers to the following two questions. First, can she deny that Britain's net contributions will rise as a result of the deal that she has accepted at Fontainebleau? Secondly, can she deny that the new method of calculating


rebates that she has accepted will produce smaller rebates for Britain than have been produced by the previous formula?
At Fontainebleau, the right hon. Lady agreed to a 40 per cent. increase in VAT contributions to the Common Market. Will she confirm that the Government's public expenditure plans make no provision for that addition beginning from 1986? Therefore, where will that extra 40 per cent. come from? Will she be raising the rate of VAT, or extending the VAT base, or will there be extra public expenditure cuts in the welfare service, or will it be a combination of all three?
The right hon. Lady has repeatedly promised that agricultural expenditure will be brought under effective control. Can she deny that no progress was made at the summit to achieve that objective and to prevent agricultural expenditure this year from breaking its budget by 20 per cent., or as much as £2 billion? Will she accept from me, as she will be told by other hon. Members, that there is no justification for increasing the VAT own resources contribution in order to finance higher food mountains and the destruction of foodstuffs or to subsidise Soviet shoppers?
On 21 March, on her return from the Brussels summit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh, yes, I understand why Conservative Members do not wish to be reminded of that. On 21 March, on her return from the Brussels summit, the Prime Minister told us that the package offered there was an ad hoc arrangement which would have meant smaller rebates for Britain, discriminatory arrangements for milk quotas and an increase in VAT contributions to the Common Market. The right hon. Lady told the House that she had made it plain that neither the Government nor the British Parliament could accept such a package. Three months later, she swallowed those arrangements hook, line and sinker at Fontainebleau. Because of that, can I tell the right hon. Lady now that the Opposition do not believe that the increase in VAT own resources payments can in any way be justified by the summit deal, that we will oppose that rise in contributions by the British people with all our strength, and we invite any Conservative Member with courage to join us in that opposition?

The Prime Minister: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says now, but I note what he said when I returned from the Brussels Council and when he went to see Mr. Mitterrand and what he is purported to have said after his meeting there. He said:
Mrs. Thatcher had better enjoy the sunshine at Fontainebleau because I do not think she is going to enjoy a hell of a lot else. She is not coming away with £475 million. That I do know.
I cannot think that I need take very much notice of the right hon. Gentleman's comments. Firstly, I made it perfectly clear in my statement that the net contributions under the new VAT ceiling will be less than we would have been liable to pay under the existing VAT ceiling. Let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman. If he is going to vote against the new arrangements, what he will be voting for is an annual payment of something like £1,200 million under the renegotiated arrangements which his Goverment negotiated with the Community.

Mr. Terence Higgins: As this is clearly not a permanent settlement, should we not refuse to approve an increase in own resources until after the common agricultural policy is reformed and agricultural expenditure reduced? If agricultural expenditure is reduced,

what need is there for an increase in own resources other than to cover the cost of enlargement which in any case would be done on a transitional basis?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend is aware, we have embarked upon the first steps of trying to reduce the amount of surpluses in the Community. They have been painful first steps with the farmers, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware. Nevertheless, they understood the need for them and we shall have to continue, sometimes with other products, to reduce surpluses, otherwise we shall not get down the vast proportion of expenditure which goes on agriculture. That is why we have been in Brussels, and Finance Ministers are now implementing the decision to set the total amount of expenditure for the European budget at the beginning of the year, and within the total amount to set the amount for agriculture. It is an attempt to have discipline on agricultural expenditure and, as my right hon. Friend knows, I am the first to say that we need to have such discipline. If we did as he said, may I make it perfectly clear that I believe that we should not have got the 1,000 million ecu refund for 1984 which is part of the existing settlement—that is, £600 million. I think that it would have been difficult to get the £440 million unblocked., and in 1985–86 we should be paying to the Community between £1,200 million and £1,500 million, which I think would be an enormous amount to pay.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, to reach that agreement, she reduced her demand for a rebate next year from £750 million to £600 million, which she gave no inkling of during the recent European elections? Will she also confirm that the agreement will enable policies to go ahead that were deferred from March, particularly on the ESPRIT programme and other areas of high technology and co-operation?

The Prime Minister: I should make it perfectly clear that at the moment there is no system and no formula. The formula was for the first two years out of a three-year agreement. It operated for two years: 1980 and 1981. Frankly, it operated rather better than the Community expected when it agreed to it. For 1982 we had to arrange an ad hoc refund, and for 1983 we had to do the same, on a falling basis. Therefore, for 1984 there was once again an increased basis. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the figure for 1983 was 750 million ecu—it is easier to give the figures in the European currency—and that the figure for 1984 is 1,000 million ecu. So once more there is a rising basis. For 1985, those refunds will come out of the system that starts on 1 January 1986. As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, the system is such that one gets one's refunds for the previous year out of income in the following year.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the tenacity that has led to an agreement that she has been able to describe as good for Britain and good for Europe? Does she agree that the great advantage of it is that it opens the way to implementing the policies set out in the Stuttgart declaration, which she and the other Heads of Government signed last year? The Opposition often demand such policies but they are never prepared to pay for them.

The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his congratulations. What he has said is true.


As has been said, we were unable to go ahead with the many new policies agreed in the Stuttgart declaration. I also accept that policies on opening up the Community to services are very much needed. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) are concerned, and even Opposition Members have written to me about the need for expenditure to be made from the Community budget on ESPRIT. Those things will now be able to go ahead, and we shall be able to do more on research, matters relating to the environment and many other things.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Prime Minister aware that even more important than the exact fraction of the loaf with which she returned from Fontainebleau is the need that she faced to withhold her consent, at an historic moment, to an increase in own resources? Why did she not make use of that once-for-all opportunity?

The Prime Minister: If we had not made use of it, we would not have obtained the agreement for a refund and we would have been left without any right to a refund whatever. We should have had to pay the full amount liable under the VAT contribution, which is the full 1 per cent. As I have said, this year it would have amounted to about £1,200 million and next year it would have amounted to a similar amount—possibly up to £1,500 million. The right hon. Gentleman might have faced that prospect with equanimity, but I did not.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Will my right hon. Friend accept that most fair-minded people whose judgment is not affected by anti-Europeanism will agree that the compromise that she reached at Fontainebleau is reasonable, taking fully into account both British and European interests? Now that this problem is fortunately out of the way, what plans do the Government have for meeting, with our European partners, the technological challenge presented by Japan and the United States, for setting up a genuine common market in financial services and for joint foreign policy initiatives?

The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. Friend, and I agree with him. The settlement is reasonable and fair. As I said, we have laid out a statement for the future development of Europe which I have placed in the Library. I shall let him have a copy.
We discussed matters such as ESPRIT and the airbus. Some things we join in on a bilateral or trilateral basis and others we join in on a Community basis because they are better done on a Community basis; otherwise they would be so expensive.
I totally agree that it is most important that we in Europe should regain, in the new era of electronic products, the technological initiative that has passed to Japan and the United States. That is to some extent significant, because those countries have been able to create new jobs more readily than any country in Europe, and we also discussed that. One reason for that is that they have embraced the technological age and another is their tremendous development in service jobs—both matters which my right hon. Friend selected in his question.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Has the Prime Minister, looking back on this five-year saga, considered

why the Italian Government, who were confronted with almost the same scale of budgetary problem in 1978, managed to resolve it so much more quietly, completely and permanently?

The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure quite what the right hon. Gentleman's question is directed at. He will know that the Italians get an enormous positive benefit from being in the Community and have never really had to battle about a net contribution. [Interruption.] They have never had to battle about a net contribution. Only in one year did they have a net contribution and that was in 1978—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: It was 330 million ecu — a very small net contribution—and that was the very year in which they joined us in our request. Ever since, they have had net benefits, because that is the way the system has operated for them. They have never had to do battle again. I will send the right hon. Gentleman the figures. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman was one of those people who said that I should have accepted the previous deal, although it was very much worse than this.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this agreement could not have been obtained except by a Government who are known, especially by our European partners, as strong in their commitment to Europe and in their defence of British interests? Is she further aware that the Leader of the Opposition could not have got this agreement by dinner last night? He would be lucky if he were not eaten for breakfast today. Finally, will my right hon. Friend agree that the country is lucky to have a Prime Minister who fights hard and gets an agreement at the end?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We should not have got this agreement unless it had been known that we were very pro-European and that Britain makes considerable contributions to the life of the Community and believes that it is right to be in the Community. I agree that the Opposition would have loved to get this agreement but never could, never did, and never will.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It was announced in Dublin last night that the future of Northern Ireland was discussed at Fontainebleau in the context of the report of the New Ireland Forum. Should we not be told what was discussed? Can the Prime Minister confirm that there is to be an Anglo-Irish summit arising out of the those discussions in the autumn as was announced in Dublin? What is the summit for?

The Prime Minister: The subject of Northern Ireland was not discussed in the European Council of Ministers, as one would expect. The Taoiseach and I had a short bilateral meeting at which we had a preliminary discussion of the forum report and we also referred to the report produced by the Unionists. There will be the customary bilateral talks. I do not believe that the date has yet been fixed.

Sir Peter Blaker: Having secured what is clearly an acceptable package agreement, is my right hon. Friend aware that she will have overwhelming support for her determination to secure a more complete


common market, especially in the area of service industries? Is that not one of the objectives of the original treaties, and would it not be of great benefit to Britain?

The Prime Minister: Yes, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the treaty, the aim of having a common market in services comes before the aim of a common agricultural policy. It is one of those parts of the treaty which people have been very slow to implement. We have often pointed out that services are one of the things in which Britain excels, and we shall carry on trying to secure a common market in services.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made a very good start with air fares in a bilateral arrangement between ourselves and Holland, and we are pursuing the matter of lorry quotas with the Federal Republic of Germany.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the right hon. Lady deny, despite all the juggling of the figures, that the terms of the settlement are far below the aims that she set out in her previous tough rhetoric? Another chance has been lost to remove, once and for all, the albatross of the common agricultural policy. Will the right hon. Lady arrange to keep a white flag permanently at 10 Downing street, as obviously it will be in constant use in the EEC?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the terms of the settlement were fair and reasonable, and better than anything previously on offer. We had a formula for only two years. In the in-between ad hoc years, it has been much more difficult to secure any refunds. As I pointed out recently, some of them have been on a much lower basis than the one that we secured for 1984.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about the common agricultural policy. Is he really suggesting that Scottish farmers could have taken a bigger reduction in their milk quotas? If he is, will he say so?

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: As the Common Market can endure only if it is seen to be fair in all EEC countries, including Britain, and as my right hon. Friend has made a great contribution in that respect, will she now do a further job—which only she, with her pertinacity, can do—for the Common Market as well as for Britain, by ensuring that Spain is subjected to the same steel output disciplines as those to which Britain has been subjected? Will she ensure that Spain, when it enters the Common Market, will have the same base year for calculating its quota as every other country already in the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the negotiations with Spain and Portugal are now taking place. It is hoped that the main decisions will be completed by September this year. That will be necessary so that they can enter the Community in 1986.
My hon. Friend has touched on some very sensitive points. There are several major matters still outstanding with Spain, of which steel is one. There are also matters concerning agriculture, wine and fishing, and some relating to industry. I shall bear my hon. Friend's points very much in mind.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Can the Prime Minister say whether the deal will do anything to discourage the increasing growth of food mountains in the

Community? As she is at pains to boast about the great attractions of VAT contributions, will she allow a free vote in the House on the matter?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the surpluses, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we started on guarantee thresholds for the first time this year, and for the first time there was a reduction in cereal prices. Those were fundamental changes. They have caused a good deal of trouble in various countries, including Scotland. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman feels that we should have caused even more trouble by taking even sharper reductions. I doubt whether that would have been in keeping with what most people in this House would say about our agriculture. We have started, and we shall have to continue so that we do riot produce so many surpluses. The hon. Gentleman knows my views on selling them off cheap. I am very much against selling them in that way.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about VAT contributions, we shall consider the matter in the usual way.

Mr. George Gardiner: The Prime Minister has clearly secured tangible benefits for Britain in her negotiations. Now that the impasse has been broken, can she tell us how strong the resolve is or was among other heads of Government at Fontainebleau to deliver other tangible benefits of the kind she has mentioned?
Can the Prime Minister tell us how and when the suggestions included in the paper that she has tabled will come under discussion?

The Prime Minister: The suggestions will come under discussion very shortly in a different Council of Ministers, and we hope that there will be a special working party to consider the many suggestions from different countries about how to proceed with the proposals that are before us at present. I do not disguise the fact that it is as difficult to keep down the level of public expenditure in the Community as it is in the House. Some of those who protest most about this settlement are those who are most anxious to put up public expenditure everywhere.
We shall have to make strenuous efforts to keep down the level of public expenditure. I believe that we now have more partners who wish to keep the level down. France wishes to keep the level of public expenditure down, because she is a net contributor. Germany, which is a very large net contributor, also wishes to keep the level down. I pay tribute to President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl for their help in getting this arrangement through the European Council. Holland is keen to keep public expenditure down. I do not disguise the fact that we shall have to keep a watch on each and every decision.

Mr. John David Taylor: The Prime Minister has said that she will not recommend to the House an increase of 1·4 per cent. VAT unless there is budget discipline. Will she tell us in general terms what kind of budget discipline she would expect to see before she makes that recommendation?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that I referred to two parts of the Brussels provisional agreement—first, at the outset of the financial year we shall set a total amount of expenditure, and, secondly, within that total we shall set an amount of expenditure, and, secondly, within that total we shall set an amount for agricultural expenditure which will not go


as quickly as the increase in the own resources base. We have passed to the Finance Ministers the task of deciding the precise method by which those two principles will be guaranteed. Obviously, we should like the principles to be embodied formally and legally in the budgetary procedure, but it must be done in such a way as to guarantee them.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the EEC began to reduce expenditure on agriculture only when it realised that it was running out of money? If more funds are given to the EEC, what discipline will there be to prevent yet another increase in agricultural expenditure?

The Prime Minister: More EC member countries are becoming net contributors. Frankly, that is the best discipline that we can possibly have. There are, of course, farmers in every country who, having had unlimited amounts available for guaranteed prices, are finding it difficult to adapt to the new system. Nevertheless, we know that we shall have to adapt. The new increase in own resources, should it go through all the legislatures is primarily to allow for the enlargement of the Community by Spain and Portugal. Some of the moneys will undoubtedly go to other policies, and I am afraid that the overall amount given to agriculture will still increase.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister's enthusiasm this afternoon for the accession of Spain and Portugal. Is the right hon. Lady aware that, because of her failure to achieve a permanent solution to the budget problem, Portugal, which will be one of the poorest countries in the European Community, will become the largest net contributor in 1986?

The Prime Minister: The beginning of a part of the communiqué points out that, should any country be paying an unreasonable amount, bearing in mind its position—we had Portugal very much in mind — special arrangements could and would be made. I agree that it would be absurd if Portugal were ever to become a large net contributor. I do not expect her to do so. In any case, Portugal will go through a considerable transitional period, as we did. The true character of the financing arrangements made for this country became apparent towards the end of the transitional period. An attempt was made to renegotiate then, but not successfully. We have an agreement that will last as long as the 1·4 per cent. increase lasts. We would need to have the consent of the House to change the 1·4 per cent. figure.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Since 1982, my right hon. Friend has won rebates to the tune of £2·5 billion. The Fontainebleau agreement holds forth the prospect of a further £2·5 billion in the years ahead. Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the amount yielded by the budget mechanism negotiated in 1975 by the last Labour Government?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer [Mr. Nigel Lawson): Zero.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend says that it was zero. I should say that it was, not zero but a very small amount.

Mr. Lawson: It was zero.

The Prime Minister: It was zero. That is why I had such a difficult time in Dublin. It was said that a corrective mechanism had been negotiated. In fact, it was ineffective in securing any effective rebate for this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) is correct. We shall have to procure £2·5 billion of refunds. My hon. Friend mentioned £2·5 billion under the previous ad hoc arrangements. I hope that under the new arrangements the amount will be a little more than that.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: In her statement the Prime Minister mentioned 66 per cent. of the marginal net payment. Will she confirm that that phrase excluded the levies and duties, amounting to about £1,400 million, sent directly to Brussels? Since both the Government and Parliament are keen on firm, effective guarantees for control of Community expenditure in the future, has the right hon. Lady set a time limit for the completion of that mechanism? Is it 18 July?

The Prime Minister: Finance Ministers will meet in July to consider the problem. I hope that the new arrangements will be in place before legislation is drafted—the legislation must come before each of the national Parliaments—to effect the amendment of the treaty that is necessary for the increase in own resources of 1·4 per cent. Our refunds are linked specifically with that increase in own resources.
The hon. Gentleman was not quite correct in his earlier point. Some levies and duties are excluded. They are only the excess levies and duties, which last year amounted to 290 million ecu. Most of the levies are counted as that for this purpose.

Mr. Peter Shore: Why?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman knew how the Community worked, he would know the answer to that question.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: As one of the signatories to the cautionary early-day motion on the subject of own resources, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her success at Fontainebleau, which she achieved by a combination of skill, reasonableness and firmness. Will the percentage refund be deemed non-compulsory, in which case the European Assembly will have to consent every year before we get the money?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the European Assembly has put our present 1983 refunds into reserve account. It will have to transfer those moneys from the reserve into the ordinary account. We shall certainly have to get the agreement of the Parliament to release the funds in any one year.

Mr. George Park: The words "fair" and "reasonable" have been used several times this afternoon. In answering one of her hon. Friends, the Prime Minister talked about some negotiations with Spain. I draw her attention sharply to the Spanish Government's decision to limit to 15,000 the number of cars allowed into Spain and to keep the level of tax to 45 per cent., the same as it is now. What is fair and reasonable about that?

The Prime Minister: I am very much aware of that point. That is one of the matters that is being negotiated with Spain. If Spain did not come into the Common Market it would apparently be more difficult to obtain a negotiation of the type we seek—which would, we


hope, after the transitional period, result in a much fairer balance of tariffs between Spain and this country. What I said about the European Assembly applied to the unblocking of the 1983 refunds, but not to the future arrangements which will automatically operate by reducing our VAT contribution in the following year.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an economic price worth paying to ensure the future stability and development of the European Community? My right hon. Friend's arrangements are not excessive. Does she agree that one of the principal objectives now must be to extend Community policies in those areas that lead to genuine job creation?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should make it clear that without the new arrangement we had no right to any refund under the existing 1 per cent. VAT. The Labour Government left us with no right to any refund. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) seems to be confirming what I have said. No previous Government left us with any rights. The agreement was renegotiated under the Labour Government, but it left us with no right to any refund. The Opposition may not like that, but they cannot argue with the truth of it. Without the new arrangement, we should be paying about £1,200 million to the Community this year.
On the new policies, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital to pursue developments in the new electronics and that we pursue as fast as possible a common market in services. Those are the two areas likely to lead to most job creation in the future and in which there has been most job creation in the United States and Japan, both of which use a much smaller proportion of the national income in public expenditure than we take in Europe.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Why has the Prime Minister not referred to the bridging loan that the EEC will have to raise in October due to the British Government's dragging their feet? Why has she also not mentioned the £8,000 million lost across the exchanges each year in our manufacturing trade? Why has she not achieved a lasting agreement and why does she not have the control over the budget that she has suggested she has? Does she agree that that is a failure on behalf of the European Community and on behalf of the British people?

The Prime Minister: First, we have not agreed to any such loans. It looks as though the budget as at present drafted may be in deficit this year, but article 199 of the treaty provides that the revenue and expenditure shown in the budget shall be in balance, so it is not right to raise loans for budgetary purposes because it is contrary to that article. The matter has been remitted to the Council of Finance Ministers and this country and Holland have made proposals about reducing the expenditure to bring the budget within its income. The Court of Auditors has also made certain proposals. Those proposals must be considered first. Otherwise, I believe that methods other than loans will have to be found to bring the budget into balance, because it is contrary to the treaty to have a deficit on the budget, and that must be taken into account in any proposal.
The reason for the manufacturing imbalance is that we are not so good as some manufacturers in Europe at

producing the goods that people in this country choose to buy. That should be a lesson to us in design and competitiveness and I hope that we shall learn it.
The agreement is lasting in the sense that this particular arrangement is specifically linked with, and lasts as long as, the 1·4 per cent. own resources. That means that the 1·4 per cent. cannot be varied upwards without the agreement of the British Government and every other Government, and the agreement of every Parliament. If I am still at the Dispatch Box, as I hope that I shall be, however long it may be, it is inconceivable that we should agree to such an increase in our own resources without a similar or bettter arrangement for our refunds.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the importance of this statement, but there is very important business to follow and many Members wish to speak. I propose to allow questions on the statement to continue until 4.30 pm, but I hope that each Member will ask one question, not several.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: In view of Spain's attitude both to Gibraltar and to the Falklands, did my right hon. Friend explain that the United Kingdom's consent to Spain's accession will depend on a change in that attitude?

The Prime Minister: I did not make that point specifically at this European Council meeting, but my hon. Friend will be well aware of our commitment to Gibraltar. When Spain joins the Community, it must be on the basis that the barriers between Gibraltar and Spain are open.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Is the Prime Minister able to agree an increase in VAT own resources in the absence of detailed—I stress the word "detailed"—financial estimates about the proposed expenditure to be financed out of the increase? Would she adopt such a cavalier and financially incompetent attitude to proposed increases in public expenditure in the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: As the common agricultural policy depends on world prices of crops related to European prices and as about 70 per cent. of expenditure is related to that it is very much more difficult than dealing with our expenditure in the United Kingdom. We had estimates before us when we considered the former arrangement, which lasted for three years, but those estimates were entirely falsified by events, giving us a much larger refund than we expected. The hon. Gentleman will know of the difficulties in being precise about the common agricultural policy many years hence. That is why we proposed the arrangement whereby each year we establish the total public expenditure and the amount for agriculture.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As an increase in own resources to 1·4 per cent. will give the Community control over an additional £700 million of United Kingdom taxpayers' money on top of the higher net contribution compared with the previous three years, to what extent and in what areas will Community policies replace United Kingdom policies and to what extent and in what areas does my right hon. Friend intend to cut public expenditure or raise taxation?

The Prime Minister: I must stress again that the amount that we shall be paying after refunds under the 1·4


per cent. VAT is less than the amount that we are now liable to pay under the 1 per cent. VAT. Without this arrangement, we should be paying about £1,200 million this year and £1,200 million next year. We shall actually be paying less. [Interruption.] If the question is based on a premise that is not quite right, I am bound to point out the correct one.
As for where the extra expenditure will go, an example to which most people agreed was the ESPRIT programme. That will come out of the European budget because it is a very good European project to which we contribute. We also hope that a greater proportion will be spent on structural matters and the economic and social fund, as right hon. and hon. Members often request. We should like a greater proportion of the budget to be spent on projects such as youth training and structural improvements in various areas.

Mr. Jack Straw: Does the Prime Minister recall that when she started these abortive negotiations she told the House on 1 November 1979 that she was seeking a broad balance between our contributions and the amount that we got back? Does she agree that, compared with the target that she set four and a half years ago, yesterday's settlement is a humiliating failure for Britain, in which the only flag that she raised for Britain was not the Union Jack but the white flag of surrender? If that is not so, will she confirm that, despite all the sabre-rattling about rebates, Britain's net contributions in the past five years of Tory Government have been 100 million per year higher in real terms than they were under the Labour Government? Finally, will she admit what she has so far refused to admit—that next year and the year after that, despite the rebates, Britain's net contribution will be more than it has been in the past three years? Does she admit that that is so?

The Prime Minister: It is so because I got such a good deal before—so good that when it ran out we could not be allowed a further continuation of it—and we have had years of ad hoc arrangements in which the liability left to me was that which was renegotiated by the Labour Government and no one else.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Looking ahead, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to public confidence in the European Community that control over the supply of British taxpayers' money to the Community budget should remain vested in this House? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to assure us that the House retains that right and will be able to use it in future years?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is asking whether we are attempting to give the European Assembly powers to directly raise revenue from the people of this country, avoiding the House, in the form of direct taxation from the European Assembly. we have no such proposals and would vigorously resist any such proposals.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that her statement this afternoon bears little resemblance to the early-day motion that more than 100 of her right hon. and hon. Friends invited the House to support?
When the right hon. Lady refers to new jobs, will she say whether or not there was discussion about the need to

stop the haemorrhage of old jobs, especially from the steel industry where Britain has made a major contribution towards reduced capacity?

The Prime Minister: We had quite a long discussion about jobs under the heading of the London economic summit. We also had a long discussion at the summit.
As I said earlier, we have noticed that both Japan and the United States are better at job creation than Europe. Their markets are much more able, and find it much easier, to embrace change. They have much more enterprising cultures, and far less rigidity in the labour markets. All those considerations mean that they have far more jobs in the new electronics and, because of more flexibility in the labour market, far more jobs in the new service industries. Many more people are involved in small industries. All of that was extensively discussed.
We thought that there would be no point in trying artificially to maintain jobs in old industries too long at the price of failing to create jobs in the new industries of tomorrow.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, if she had meekly accepted the terms that were renegotiated by the previous Labour Government and had done nothing at all about getting a better deal for Britain in Europe, this country would have paid £3 billion more over the past five years? Can she understand the attitude of the Labour party, which did so little when it had the chance and which is now so mealy-mouthed about a deal that is far better than anything that it achieved?

The Prime Minister: As we have gained refunds of £2·5 billion, the figure that my hon. Friend gives is not far wrong. We have done a very good deal for Britain. I do not believe that the Labour party could or would have done it. Britain would have been the worse for its attitude towards the Community.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Can the right hon. Lady confirm that she has, in effect, abandoned the goal of a radical reform of the common agricultural policy? While the CAP might consume a smaller proportion of the budget in percentage terms, that will continue to increase in absolute terms.
How can we have faith in a restructuring of budgetary proposals when her Government propose to reduce regional expenditure? How can we have faith in the Community's ability to have a common market in services when the French in particular, as was pointed out yesterday by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), close their coastal shipping market to our ships while we open our waters to the French?

The Prime Minister: A reform of the common agricultural policy has started with guaranteed thresholds and quotas. I do not know whether the Labour party would wish to say to the agricultural community and those who depend upon farmers, which is about 10 per cent. of the working population, that the quotas should have been tougher than they were. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is Labour's policy, will he please say so, and let the 10 per cent. of people who depend upon the health of the agricultural industry know that that is his case?
With regard to regional expenditure, we hope that expenditure on the economic and social funds will take a bigger proportion of the European budget, not a lesser one as it has in the past.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Those of us who have recently had the opportunity of visiting Japan wish to endorse as powerfully as we can my right hon. Friend's strong perception of the massive industrial challenge that will be mounted to western Europe from the countries on the Pacific rim. Was her perception of that challenge shared by the other Heads of Government?
While Governments and Heads of Governments are preoccupied annually or triennially with discussion of what is really no more than 1 per cent. of our gross national budgets and 0·01 per cent. of the wealth of Europe as a whole, how will we mount the necessary response, without which we shall certainly go down?

The Prime Minister: The challenge of Japan has previously affected the whole of the trade of western Europe. We used to be one of the centres of the latest electronics but now the main part of the trade has moved to Japan and to the United States. We have a good deal of that market in this country, but it is small in proportion to that of Japan. We must study the methods that have enabled the Japanese to go ahead far faster than we have. My hon. Friend is quite right, in that, because we have taken so much time on the problem of the budget, we have not been able to turn as much attention as we should to these vital problems. We shall now be able to do so.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Is it not a fact that Britain, which is one of the four poorest countries in the Community, will still pay cash via the EEC to five of the six richest countries in Europe? Does the Prime Minister realise that, although she might be able to explain that to her constituents in Finchley, I shall have a hell of a job to explain it to the 25 per cent. who are unemployed in the north-east?

The Prime Minister: If we did not belong to Europe, much of the investment that comes to this country from overseas would not come here. That would have a very damaging effect on jobs. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give notice that overseas investors should not come to his constituency, I shall take note.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the sterling progress that she achieved at Fontainebleau? Was there any discussion of the scandalous sale of cheap food to the totalitarian regimes of Eastern Europe, when it would be so much better to give the poorer people of western Europe and the Third world the opportunity to buy it?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss that matter in detail. One problem is that products such as butter, which is in refrigerated surplus, are not easy to send overseas to, say, African countries. Products such as milk powder are sent in great quantities to countries that have need of them because they are short of food.
Many countries in Africa will say to us—rightly, in my view—that they do not want to depend upon cheap surplus food from Europe. They want aid to enable them to produce food supplies for themselves. So we use food surpluses to help those countries, but it is much more important that they get aid to produce food supplies themselves.
With regard to selling that food to people in Europe, the more one does that, the less they will buy existing production, and there will still be a problem of surplus. We

must try to sell the surplus in a way that would increase demand. As my hon. Friend knows, it goes from time to time to schools and to retirement pensioners.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As American interest rates have gone up since the London economic summit, and in the light of the Carthagena conference, what constructive ideas do the leaders of western Europe have about Latin American debt? Is not that debt extremely dangerous and might it not dwarf any problems that have arisen in relation to the Continental and Illinois bank?

The Prime Minister: We have discussed the conclusions of the London summit. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we gave special attention to that matter at the London economic summit. I said that each country had to be dealt with case by case. Mr. Larosière of the International Monetary Fund had endorsed that approach a few days previously, when we set out a framework of rules for trying to solve that problem. But the way in which they should apply must be determined individually. The hon. Gentleman will find full details in the communiqué for the London economic summit.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any requests to the House for an increase in own resources will be conditional upon prior enactment of an effective system of control over Community spending? Does not that raise the paradox that was alluded to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—that we are trying to encourage the Community to spend less by offering it more? Would my right hon. Friend try to dissuade an alcoholic from drinking by offering him unlimited whisky if he signed the pledge

The Prime Minister: Analogies always break down, so it is dangerous to use them. Part of the reason for the increase in own resources is to enable Spain and Portugal to enter the community. I hope that most people agree that it is very important to us all that Spain and Portugal remain within the democratic comity of nations and that they both stay in NATO and know that we are anxious to have them in the Community as we are to keep them in NATO. It might be worth spending a little money on that, even though our own contributions to the Community under the 1·4 per cent. would be less than we are now liable to pay under the 1 per cent. VAT contribution.
With regard to when we shall put the text of the 1·4 per cent. before the House to amend the amendments to the treaty, and how we shall demand that the objectives for budgetary and financial discipline are met, the appropriate part of the communiqué that was provisionally agreed at Brussels stated:
The European Council invites the Council of Ministers to adopt the measures necessary to guarantee the effective applications of the principles referred to.
There will be a great deal of discussion and argument about how those principles will effectively be put into practice. We shall be here arguing for the maximum control, I hope, in the budgetary procedures.

Mr. Kinnock: I should like to ask two brief questions arising out of the statement and answers given by the right hon. Lady. In her repeated references to what Britain might be liable to pay if she had not accepted this package, is not the right hon. Lady asking us to accept that any rebate is better than no rebate, regardless of the attached


conditions? If she is now admitting that, under the new formula, the rebates will be smaller because, in her words in answer to an earlier question, the other members would not allow anything else, how can she seriously ask us to vote higher value added tax contributions to the Common Market in return for a worse deal than she got previously, as she already acknowledged?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is no. It is because I would not accept just any rebate that we have taken this long to negotiate. I would not accept just any rebate. That is why we went on rejecting and rejecting, until we got what we thought was a fair deal. [Interruption.] It is no earthly good: the right hon. Gentleman cannot get over the terrible faux pas he uttered after he had seen Mr. Mitterrand. He did not expect anything to come out of Fontainebleau. He is very sad, sorry and upset that it has. The rebates have been smaller in recent years than they were on the formula. The formula applied in a way that was not expected. We have had lower rebates. I was not prepared to go on having lower rebates, so in 1984 we got a higher rebate, but I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be good at arithmetic. The rebate will be higher again in 1985.

Later—

Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House may inadvertently have been misled by something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) during questions on the Prime Minister's statement. My hon. Friend did not sign the cautionary early-day motion 637 in my name,
That, in the opinion of this House, a convincing case for increasing the 'Own-Resources' of the EEC has not yet been made.
The motion has been signed by more than 100 Conservative Members. That is sufficient evidence of the feeling on this side of the House.

Home Secretary (Press Reports)

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to seek your advice on how we can raise the important matter of the reported allegation that disgruntled MI5 officers have smeared the Home Secretary, perhaps for his handling of the Libyan siege, perhaps for anti-Semitic reasons—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that anything arising out of this point of order can possibly be for me.

Mr. Cohen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must raise a point of order that I can answer. I am not prepared to comment upon allegations in newspapers.

Mr. Cohen: It is because there are restrictions in the House on raising matters about MI5 that I am raising this point of order. I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to take this away after I have made my case and consider it. First—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw my attention to an allegation in the newspapers. It is absolutely nothing to do with me. I have nothing to say on the matter.

Mr. Cohen: It is for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule, not on the allegations, but on how such a matter can be raised in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to guide the hon. Gentleman on how he can raise that issue. That is entirely a matter for him.

Later—

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not propose to take a further point of order from the hon. Gentleman, because it is reprehensible to seek to smear an hon. Member of this House by means of a point of order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Ministerial Statements

Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask you to study carefully the final remarks of the Prime Minister in answering my question, when she implied a threat to investment in my constituency. As we know, the Prime Minister plays an important part in attracting investment into areas, as has been well publicised because of her activities in the Oman. Her remarks fall into the same category as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows very well how to look after his constituency.

Mr. Boyes: I was serious about that point of order. I know that you will look into it, Mr. Speaker, because you look carefully at the Official Report every day.
I should like to raise another point of order. It is serious. It follows yesterday's exchanges about the rail crash at Morpeth. Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends suggested that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport should come to the House and explain or withdraw his remarks about the excessive speed at which the train was travelling. I wonder whether you have had an opportunity to meet the Under-Secretary and whether he has intimated to you that he will come before the House. The matter will be raised continually until he does so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday. I have not seen the Under-Secretary, but I know that the Patronage Secretary was present yesterday, and I am sure that he heard what was said.

GLC Official (Arrest)

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to seek your guidance. Yesterday, the head of Ken Livingstone's private office was arrested on Waterloo bridge, which on the face of it is further evidence of the Government's campaign of vindictiveness against the Greater London council. I shall not have the opportunity to question the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box, because we recently had questions to his Department. I shall not necessarily be lucky in the draw for an Adjournment debate. Could you advise me whether an application under Standing Order No. 10 will be favourably considered by yourself?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a thoroughly hypothetical question, but I note with interest that the hon. Gentleman did raise the matter yesterday in the House.

Ministerial Statements

Mr. John Home Robertson: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), Mr. Speaker. The railway crash at Morpeth involved my constituent, as I said yesterday. We have established that a departmental inquiry is not covered by the sub judice rule. However, in

view of the evident indiscretion on the part of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who prejudged the issue by saying that he thought the accident was caused by excessive speed, and subsequently said that he was ordering a departmental inquiry, which, in the view of any fair-minded person, must be seen as contradictory, will you consider extending the sub judice rule—I appreciate that it might take time to consider that point—to cover departmental inquiries and other quasi-judicial inquiries of that nature?

Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice of this point of order. It follows the ones raised by my hon. Friends.
Yesterday you read out the resolution of the House relating to the sub judice rule. Clearly, it relates only to courts and courts martial, not to departmental inquiries. As you know, that resolution of 1962 was based on the recommendations of the first report from the Select Committee on Procedure, House of Commons document No. 156. In that report the Committee considered whether the sub judice rule should apply to departmental or administrative inquiries, and in paragraph 17 it stated:
There remain the numerous statutory bodies, many of diem empowered to take evidence on oath, to which the rule might be applied.
I think that this inquiry is empowered to take evidence on oath.
The report continued:
Your Committee think that the application of the rule to all these bodies as a matter of course would be too restrictive of the rights of Parliament. In their view, in respect of all these bodies each case must be considered on its merits, and they see no alternative to leaving the decision to the discretion of the Chair.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when this matter was raised, you said that it was not a matter for you. I quite understand that you cannot be expected to have to hand the contents of every report of the Select Committee on Procedure, but it seems that although the House came to a clear decision in its resolution in 1962, it did so in the light of the report. The report allowed a discretion to reside in the Chair on whether the sub judice rule should apply in relation to administrative inquiries in particular cases.
I would ask you to rule, first, that this is a matter within your discretion and, secondly, that on the merits of the remarks made by the Under-Secretary for Transport on Monday, in which he plainly breached the most commonsense of sub judice rules, it should be ruled by you that his remarks were out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I have read the report, but I am bound by the resolutions of the House. I have also read the report of the debate on the matter, during which the whole subject of the sub judice rule was discussed. But I am wholly bound by the resolution which the House came to after that debate. If the House wishes to change the rules, I shall be bound by any new decision which the House takes.

Oral Questions

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time I asked a supplementary question about discussions with the Gulf states. You ruled at that time that I was not in order. How are we to find out about the contents of discussions with any group of people if we are not allowed to ask questions?


Yesterday, for the first time, British consular staff were able to speak to the people incarcerated in Libya. It may well be—Arab politics being devious, to say the least—that it was because of the discussions in the Gulf states, that the consular official was allowed to visit the British citizens incarcerated in Libya. Was not my question entirely in order?

Mr. Speaker: If I allow supplementary questions to go very wide of the question on the Order Paper, it is unfair to those who have later questions. Question No. 6 dealt specifically with recent discussions held in the Gulf states. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Libya. As far as I know, Libya is not very close to the Gulf states.

Mr. Holt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have nothing more to say on that matter. It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to seek in this way to ask a question which I disallowed at the time.

Mr. Harry Cohen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Geoffrey Dickens to introduce his Ten-minute Bill.

Mr. Cohen: Further to my earlier points of order, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, it is not part of your role to gag hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be very careful about accusing the Chair of that sort of thing. I seek to be fair to all hon. Members, and I do not seek to gag anyone. It is in that spirit that I say it is reprehensible for an hon. Member to seek to smear any other hon. Member of the House by drawing attention to a newspaper article about which I know absolutely nothing and on which I cannot rule.

Paedophilia (Protection of Children)

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to be a member of any organisation, association, society, religious sect, club or the like that holds meetings at which support is given to encourage, condone, corrupt or entice adults to have sexual relationships with children; to make it an offence for the members of any such body, previously described, to possess, receive, distribute, exchange, produce, sell, solicit or advertise any material describing or suggesting sexual relationships between adults and children, where such material is an indecent or obscene print, a drawing, a painting, a photograph, a lithograph, an engraving, a cinematograph film, a video film, a book, a card or written communication or an indecent or obscene article.
Notice of presentation of the Bill was given on 6 June 1984. During my short speech, I shall not give way to any hon. Member.
It is difficult to understand that in our midst we have evil adults who are obsessed by the desire to have sexual relationships between themselves and innocent children. It is a sickening fact that many of these like-minded adults form themselves into groups for ease of communication and to advertise, recruit and contact. These groups produce disgusting publications in the form of newsletters and contact magazines, and circulate child pornography. This distressing material is clearly designed to satisfy and stimulate their lust for the bodies of little children and to corrupt others to join their circle.
I have actually seen publications advertising holidays abroad in Commonwealth countries with children provided and an application form too distressing to describe in this House. I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is investigating this at the moment.
These are sad and distressing matters. I speak with public opinion behind me and I know that the Prime Minister is fully aware of the extreme distaste felt by the general public for the the organisations which I wish to proscribe. She has written to tell me so.
With thousands of letters of support, and well over 1 million signatures on petitions from all over the United Kingdom, why do we have to rely on the ten-minute Bill procedure?
Three years ago I used parliamentary privilege to name a titled former British diplomat involved with child pornography and a member of an organisation such as I have described. There were a few in the House who accused me, wrongly, of misuse of our privilege. When the man I named was recently charged and convicted of gross indecency in a public toilet, there was a conspicuous silence in the House.
When I asked the Prime Minister at Question Time whether the spy Geoffrey Prime was involved in child abuse a few months before his trial, the very question drew laughter in this Chamber. When it was revealed at the spy trial that Geoffrey Prime had been detected as a spy through child offences, there was no laughter. I know exactly what I am up against, for I know that within the Establishment there are those who would not wish to see a change in the law.
I hope that Members of this House will now accept that we need legislation to protect our children. I shall explain how my Bill will operate. The purpose of the Bill is to make it an offence to be a member of organisations such


as the Paedophile Information Exchange. To proscribe such an organisation, the Bill takes account of the obvious possibility that organisations like PIE and others which exist—believe me—would, if named, simply reassemble under a different title. The Bill reflects and recognises the fact that if such evil organisations are to be permanently abolished, it has to be an offence simply to be a member. In this way, for such organisations to exist, the management is forced to ask people to risk committing a criminal offence.
The Bill is constructed to protect children from adults who are obsessed with, or condone, corrupt, entice or encourage the interest in sexual relationships between adults and children. In order further to protect children, the Bill has wider powers than the Protection of Children Act 1978. For example, it shall be an offence to possess, receive, distribute, exchange, produce, sell, solicit or advertise any material describing or suggesting sexual relationships between adults and children. The Bill makes illegal any indecent or obscene act or suggestion of one between adults and children that is written or illustrated by a print, drawing, painting, photograph, lithograph, engraving, cinematograph film, video film, book, card or written communication or indecent or obscene article.
Sadly, many parents have had their little child abducted, some never to be seen again. Other parents have been faced with the discovery of the body of their murdered child. It is a painful and terrible cross that such parents must bravely bear for the rest of their lives. Against that background, it would be inexcusable if Parliament failed to act.
It is difficult for many of us to contemplate the fact that, in our midst, we have evil people who sharpen their desire for the bodies of innocent children by access to the kind of material which the Bill seeks to eliminate. It is a fact that adults in every walk of life are to be found involving themselves in paedophilia. They range from some of the highest in the land to misfits in society. If we really wish to protect innocent children, my Bill is essential.
If the demand for paedophile material dries up, the benefits will be considerable. Children who otherwise would need to be procured to produce filthy, offensive child pornography would be spared. The continued corruption of adults who have ready access to material involving gross indecency, or worse, with a child will be halted. The Bill will also destroy ease of communication and the ability to advertise, recruit and contact.
I give notice that if it is the will of Parliament today to give the Bill its First Reading and then, next month, the Bill is frustrated through lack of parliamentary time, it will be my intention to reintroduce another Bill in the next Session of Parliament, if I have failed yet again to encourage the Government to act.
I used to be a regular listener to "Children's Hour" as, no doubt, were most hon. Members. I remember with

great affection Uncle Mac's closing words every night. He said, "Goodnight children everywhere." For the sake of children everywhere, I hope that the House will accept my Bill.

Ms. Clare Short: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Lady wish to oppose the Bill?

Ms. Short: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The House and the country are united in wishing to introduce any measure that will protect children from sexual abuse. That is not in contest in the House or in the country, but we must ask whether the Bill would afford children increased protection. We must answer honestly that there is nothing in the powers for which the Bill calls that would increase protection for children. We must also ask why the Bill is being presented. It is difficult not to conclude that the reason is publicity for the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). This is too serious a matter to be the subject of cheap publicity stunts.
Right hon. and hon. Members are united in their support for every possible action that prevents sexual assaults on children. The Bill will do nothing to protect children, so we oppose it, although we shall not detain the House by voting against it now.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Geoffrey Dickens, Sir Bernard Braine, Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. Peter Bruinvels, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Sir John Biggs-Davison, Miss Janet Fookes, Dr. Brian Mawhinney, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Jonathan Aitken and Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith.

PAEDOPHILIA (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN)

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens accordingly presented a Bill to make it an offence to be a member of any organisation, association, society, religious sect, club or the like that holds meetings at which support is given to encourage, condone, corrupt or entice adults to have sexual relationships with children; to make it an offence for the members of any such body, previously described, to possess, receive, distribute, exchange, produce, sell, solicit or advertise any material describing or suggesting sexual relationships between adults and children, where such material is an indecent or obscene print, a drawing, a painting, a photograph, a lithograph, an engraving, a cinematograph film, a video film, a book, a card or written communication or an indecent or obscene article: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 203.]

Representation of the People Acts

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the House that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Government's reply (Cmnd. 9140) to the First Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1982–83, House of Commons Paper No. 32, on the Representation of the People Acts.
This debate is the direct result of the work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and I am sure that the House will wish to join me in thanking the Select Committee for its report, which was published in April 1983. The Committee's inquiry into the Representation of the People Acts is the most comprehensive review of electoral law yet undertaken by a Select Committee of either House. The range of issues covered, the number of witnesses examined and the volume of written evidence considered are a tribute to the thoroughness with which the Select Committee approached its task.
The proceedings of the Committee and the written and oral evidence it took have been published in full. It is clear to anyone who reads the two volumes of its report that the Committee did not approach its work in any narrow party political spirit. A substantial number of the 22 recommendations were unanimous, and when 
The Government's reply is put forward in the same spirit. Before reaching our conclusions on the Select Committee's report, we carefully sought the views of the other parties represented in the House. Since publication, officials have had further and more detailed discussions with the political parties and the local authority associations. We shall, of course, listen carefully to the points made by hon. Members in today's debate.
The Select Committee recommended that legislation giving effect to its recommendations should be introduced as early as possible in the present Parliament to allow changes to be implemented fully at the next general election. The Government have taken the Select Committee at its word. Our hope and expectation is that, subject to the availability of Parliamentary time, legislation will be introduced as early as possible in the next Session of Parliament. The aim will then be to lay the necessary subordinate legislation and make other administrative arangements for the changes to come into operation at any election held on or after 16 February 1987—the date when the 1987–88 register of electors comes into force.
Because of the scope of the Select Committee's report, I propose to limit my remarks to the four main issues—the accuracy of the electoral register, the extension of the franchise to British citizens resident abroad, changes in absent voting arrangements, and an increase in the deposit required of a candidate at a parliamentary election, with a reduction in the threshold for forfeiture. At the same time, I hope to give some account of the responses that we have received to our invitation for comments on our reply to the Committee and of the issues on which we have thought it right to modify our original proposals. Right hon. and hon. Members who wish to raise other issues

covered in the White Paper may be assured that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, seek to give a full reply at the conclusion of the debate.
The accuracy of the electoral register is the issue which has attracted least public comment but which is arguably the most serious of all, because someone not on the register cannot vote. I am sure that every hon. Member has experienced the frustration of discovering that some of his or her constituents have been unable to vote on polling day because, for some reason, their names were not included in the register when they should have been. Our first priority, therefore, must be to ensure that the register is as accurate as possible.
A survey of electoral registration in 1981 suggested that in England and Wales as many as 6·7 per cent. of those eligible to be registered as electors were left off the register, and that up to 7 per cent. of those included were not actually qualified to vote in respect of the address for which their names were shown. That means that hundreds of thousands of people who are eligible to vote cannot do so. The White Paper makes it clear that the Government regard that as unacceptable.
The Select Committee made a number of recommendations, which we are pursuing with vigour. We are encouraging electoral registration officers to examine their procedures critically, to set up their own performance measurements, and to experiment with different approaches to improve the cost-effectiveness of their procedures and secure tangible improvements to the accuracy of their registers.
Home Office officials held a series of seminars with registration officers from the London boroughs and metropolitan districts to discuss and exchange ideas on all aspects of the registration process, with particular attention to the problems faced in inner city areas where the level of under-registration is highest. That is the background to the new code of practice which, after consultation and as recommended by the Select Committee, we plan to send to electoral registration officers before the end of the summer. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House. Further seminars will be held to follow up the code of practice and refine and improve it in the light of experience.
To run in parallel with this is a radical re-examination of form A—the annual return which each householder must complete with the names of those who are resident at his or her address and otherwise qualified to vote. The Select Committee recommended that this familiar form should be redesigned
so as to present a more attractive and less forbidding aspect
to the householder. A new version of the form will be tried out in selected areas this autumn to see whether it helps to increase the response rate and produce a more accurate return. We want to see a completely redesigned version of the form, which incorporates any further changes which seem desirable in the light of the evaluation, available for use in the annual canvass of autumn 1986.
Finally, when this programme of action is complete, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will undertake surveys in selected areas to help us assess its effectiveness.

the Committee divided it did not always do so on party lines.

Sir Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the seriousness of the inaccuracy of the register can be measured by the fact that, at the end


of the register's currency, up to 5,500,000 voters may be affected? Some of them are not entitled to be on the register, others are disfranchised because they are not on the register, and others should be on the register but are not.

Mr. Brittan: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. No matter how it is measured, the facts show, as my information shows, that the inaccuracies are serious. For that reason, the Government are determined to follow the advice of the Select Committee and do everything they can to deal with the inaccuracies.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The particularly disturbing figure that my right hon. and learned Friend announced is that of the 7 per cent. who are apparently entitled to vote when they should not be. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider, when he contemplates the structure of the new form, which I welcome, whether it is sufficient for the householder to sign it on behalf of those resident at the particular address, or whether the form should require the signatures of all those at that address who are eligible to vote?

Mr. Brittan: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point. The percentage inaccuracy relates to the entitlement to be registered at the particular address. I know from experience in Notting Hill Gate that in some cases people who were entitled to be on the register were registered, but at the wrong address.
I now turn from the practical problems of electoral registration to one of the major changes that the Government propose: the extension of the franchise to our citizens resident abroad. We propose that, for the first time, British citizens who are not resident at an address in this country on the qualifying date, but who have been registered as electors within the previous seven years, should be eligible to vote at parliamentary and European Parliament elections. Our proposals are in one sense more generous and in another more restrictive than those of the Select Committee. They are more generous, because the Select Committee recommended that the right to vote should be limited to British citizens who are resident within the territory of the European Community, and more restrictive, because the Select Committee recommended that the right should be extended to all British citizens who have previously lived here, no matter how long they have been away.
The United Kingdom is one of the few democracies which at present makes no arrangements for most of its citizens to vote when they are abroad. At European Parliament elections, all the member states, except the Republic of Ireland, have more generous arrangements than ours. At national elections, all American, French and Italian citizens have the right to vote, whether they live at home or abroad. Belgian, Danish and German citizens may vote while abroad, if they retain a permanent residence in their home country. In this country, on the other hand, the right to vote while resident abroad is limited to members of the armed forces and the public service and their wives or husbands. I find it difficult to accept that anyone who goes abroad should, in so doing, automatically lose his right to vote in elections here. People working abroad on three or four-year contracts, for example, may be as closely involved with affairs in the United Kingdom as those who stay at home. The major

questions for our consideration are what form the provision should take and how the franchise should be extended.
As the Government say in the White Paper, the British system of parliamentary democracy is based on the representation of constituencies. The electors who return a Member to this House are in general those who are resident in the constituency on the qualifying date and who, therefore, have first-hand knowledge of the constituency's affairs. Indeed, it is only in an election for a particular constituency that the franchise can be exercised at all. That is one of the reasons for not extending the franchise without qualification to all British citizens resident abroad. As Labour Members of the Select Committee put it,
if the franchise were to be afforded to all British citizens abroad, irrespective of whether they had previously been resident in the United Kingdom and therefore maintained some link. however tenuous, with a particular constituency, a number of voters would be left 'floating free' with nothing to determine where in the United Kingdom they might seek registration.
The Government accept that argument.
On the other hand, the Government saw no reason to limit the right to vote at parliamentary elections to British citizens resident within the European Community, as the Select Committee proposed. It is difficult to see why one should be able to vote in a British election if one lives in Greece, but not if one lives in Switzerland. What has perhaps been more difficult to decide is the length of time for which residents abroad should continue to enjoy the franchise here. Only one of the parties represented in the House took the view that the right to vote should be extended to all British citizen irrespective of place of residence and the time they had been away. All the other parties favoured a time limit of seven years or less during which the right could be exercised.
We accept that seven years will be an arbitrary time limit. No time limit could be anything else, but it will ensure that British citizens have the right to vote in at least one, and in many circumstances two, parliamentary and European Parliament general elections.
Some of the comments that we have received since publication have argued that the so-called seven-year rule should be waived in particular circumstances, or dropped altogether, or that some criterion should be found other than the length of time that a person has spent outside the United Kingdom.
We seriously considered a number of alternative qualifications before settling on the one put forward in the White Paper. None of these alternatives was without difficulty. For example, we considered the possiblity that the right to vote should be dependent on the payment of United Kingdom rates and taxes, but a system of this kind would have been impossibly complex and cumbersome to adminster as well as, in our view, doubtful in principle.
A case has also been put for exempting public servants, and, in particular, officials working in the institutions of the European Community, from the application of the seven-year rule. The Government readily acknowledge the importance of the work of British officials in the Community institutions, which embodies the commitment of this country to membership of the Community. At the same time, it must be emphasised that British officials are not in the Community in order to promote national interests. Indeed, to do so is forbidden by their conditions of service. In the Government's view, it would be invidious to give Community officials a more privileged


position in relation to parliamentary elections than British citizens working in the Community in the private sector, or British citizens working in other international organisations to which also we are fully committed, such as NATO, the United Nations, Commonwealth institutions and the World Bank. To do so would be to imply that we value the contribution of the one group more than that of the other. Having decided on the seven-year rule, we must apply it strictly and without descrimination. We have, therefore, decided not to depart from the White Paper in this important respect.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Home Secretary explain the position about the seven years? I understand that at the moment there is no legal requirement on registration officers to keep previous years' electoral registers. Some do; others do not. It is not clear when the seven years would start. Would it be from Royal Assent, going back for seven years or for seven years from Royal Assent? It may be necessary to peruse the reference libraries of city councils and town halls up and down the country to obtain the previous seven years' registers.

Mr. Brittan: The answer to the second point is that the seven years would start from Royal Assent. On the first point, although as far as we are aware there is no legal obligation, the registers exist.
These proposals will add a potential 600,000 voters to the electorate at a parliamentary or European Parliament general election.
I referred earlier to the frustration of those who discover that they are not on the electoral register. That is equalled only by the frustration felt by those who cannot vote because they are on holiday on polling day.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: What will be the position of potential voters who reach the age of majority while they are resident abroad and have therefore never been registered in the United Kingdom? Surely they should be entitled to vote, but apparently they are not to be.

Mr. Brittan: That is not so. Inevitably, all the details will appear in the legislation, and we shall take account of the points made. We have thought of that one, and the intention is that they should be treated on the basis of their last address.
After every general election there is a storm of protest from those who have been denied a basic civil right. I see no reason why somebody going on holiday should suffer the very severe penalty of losing his vote. With holidays increasingly spread throughout the year, and more people taking them, the present position has become quite intolerable. The Government's proposals will bring about a long-sought-after and much-needed reform in this area. Our aims are twofold: first, an extension of absent voting to all those who cannot get to the poll in person; and, secondly, an increase in the safeguards available to prevent abuse.
Postal and proxy voting have been a familiar feature of British elections for many years, yet there has never been a fundamental review of the system itself. Indeed, the categories of absent voter have grown haphazardly over the years, causing confusion to the returning officer, the

election agent and, most of all, to the elector himself. When absent voting is already so widely and freely available, it is simply impossible to justify refusing to permit a person a postal or proxy vote if he has arranged to be on holiday on polling day, but, as the White Paper says, an extension of absent voting arrangements only to holidaymakers would raise acute problems of legal definition. I suspect that is why it has not been done before.
Furthermore, absence on holiday does not exhaust the circumstances in which an elector cannot vote in person but may not apply for an absent vote under existing law. If Parliament gives a person the right to vote, Parliament must surely also provide him or her with the means, so far as is humanly practicable, of excercising it.
The White Paper therefore proposes that the right to apply for an absent vote should be extended to all those who, in the words of the statute, are
unable or likely to be unable to go in person to the polling station.
This could mean up to 600,000 more absent voters in a parliamentary election. It is not—and is not intended to be—absent voting on demand. The applicant will be required to state the reason why he or she cannot vote in person, and if the registration officer is not satisfied with the explanation the application will be refused. The Bill will make it clear that it is an offence to submit an application which is false in a material particular, and a statement to this effect will appear on the application form. In addition, we have proposed that, for the first time, a person who applies for an absent vote in respect of a particular election—for example, because he is away on holiday—should be required to have the application countersigned by another elector who will certify that the particulars given are true. In the light of consultations, we are considering the possibility of restricting the power to countersign, for example, to the applicant's employer or a responsible member of the community, such as a justice of the peace or a minister of religion.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Given that this is a change for which many people have pressed, what is the Government's attitude towards the change which many of us feel should go in parallel—that there should be a restriction on multiple registrations, which can lead to tremendous abuse? Given that someone can choose to vote by absent-voting techniques, there is no longer any need for a second registration.

Mr. Brittan: The Government are not in favour of making that change, for the reasons set out in the White Paper.
Postal votes may at present be sent only to addresses within the United Kingdom. An elector who is abroad during the election period must vote by proxy. Proxy voting is unpopular. Not all absent voters can find someone to whom they are prepared to entrust a vote, and there can never be proof that a proxy's instructions have been acted upon. Equally, there may be electors, particularly those on holiday in this country or abroad, who would prefer to vote by proxy rather than to entrust their ballot papers to the postal service. The White Paper therefore proposes that all absent voters should be given the choice of voting by post or by proxy. To increase the chances of delivery to and return from an address outside


the United Kingdom, the White Paper also proposes that, for the first time, a date should be fixed by which the postal ballot papers would have to be issued.
Those who have commented on the White Paper have expressed some reservations about this proposal. Let there be no misunderstanding. The Government are not offering, and are in no position to offer, a guarantee that an absent voter who applies for a postal ballot paper to be sent outside the United Kingdom will be able to return it by close of poll. In some cases there will clearly be time enough for this to happen. We see no reason why the elector should not be allowed to make a judgment in the knowledge of the circumstances involved. We do not propose to modify the original proposal. The last day for the issue of postal ballot papers will be prescribed in regulations as the Monday a week and a half before the poll where polling day is a Thursday. The elector will be able to make his own decision whether to appoint a proxy or trust the post. In an adult democracy it seems entirely reasonable to offer the option.
The new arrangements will create considerable extra work for the returning officer or acting returning officer at a parliamentary election and for the electoral registration officer at a local election. I think this is the right moment to say that I am sure the House will wish to join me in a tribute to those officials and their staff, to whom we all owe so great a debt for the smooth and efficient running of elections.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In considering absent voting, did the Home Secretary look at the experience in Canada of allowing absent voters to register an advance vote to avoid the possibility of corruption which could flow from the vast extension of postal voting which is involved in this proposal?

Mr. Brittan: We did look at that, but the nature of the short duration of our own election campaign and the arrangements that would have to be made to give effect to that led us to the conclusion that it was a more cumbersome and less satisfactory approach to the problem.

Mr. Rob Hayward: My right hon. and learned Friend identified the closing date for postal vote applications but did not say why he had chosen that specific time scale, which is, I think, 10 days. However, given that there are likely to be changes in the near future, people will be unaware of their increased entitlement. Will the Home Office consider shortening the time between polling day and the closing date for applications?

Mr. Brittan: I was referring to the statutory date for the sending out of the ballot papers.
I was inviting the House to agree to the compliments that I was paying to those involved in running an election and was about to say that, at a parliamentary general election in particular, the returning officer is working under considerable pressure of time, receiving nominations, adjudicating objections, considering absent voting applications, and so on. Any changes that we propose to make in our electoral arrangements must take the practical consequences fully into account.
The White Paper suggested that in order to give returning officers more time to consider absent voting applications, the parliamentary election timetable should be extended by one day. None of those consulted has

raised any objection to this proposal. The Bill will therefore fix polling day at a parliamentary general election on the seventeenth day after Dissolution, not counting Saturdays, Sundays and other dies non. Dissolution will then usually be the Tuesday three weeks and two days before polling day. The latest time for receipt of absent voting applications will be noon the following Monday.
Coupled with the changes in the timetable introduced by the Representation of the People Act 1981, which made Saturdays dies non and in real terms added two days to the timetable overall, this will give returning officers a total of three and a half more working days to consider absent voting applications than they had until the 1983 general election.
I must say a word about Northern Ireland. The view we took in formulating our proposals, and which is reflected in the White Paper, is that the nature and extent of malpractice at elections in Northern Ireland unfortunately rules out the introduction of new arrangements of this kind in the Province. I recognise, however, that a number of hon. Members feel that the law and procedure for parliamentary elections should be the same throughout the United Kingdom. As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) will be aware, I have given an undertaking to reconsider the proposals for Northern Ireland to see whether we can find a way of meeting the concerns that have been put to us. That undertaking remains, although I am not in a position to announce our conclusions this afternoon.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Home Secretary confirm his statement that applicants who apply for a postal vote on the ground that they are going on holiday will have a postal vote for one election only? Presumably those applicants who, by virtue of old age or prolonged illness, cannot vote in person will have a postal vote in perpetuity or until they die. Will there be two types of postal vote—a first tier and a second tier—and how will the returning officer be able to adjudicate on these applications?

Mr. Brittan: Frankly, the answer is yes, and yes. It will be done by virtue of the fact that each applicant will have to state on the form the reason why he is seeking the absent voting facility.
The Select Committee unanimously recommended that the parliamentary election deposit should be increased to £1,000. It also recommended that the threshold of votes required before the deposit is refunded should be reduced from 12·5 per cent. to 7·5 per cent. The White Paper accepted the £1,000 recommendation, but, in order to ease matters for minority parties, favoured a threshold of 5 per cent. rather than the 7·5 per cent. recommended by the Select Committee or the 12·5 per cent. that exists at present.
I remind the House that the deposit was introduced in 1918, at the same time as state funding of parliamentary elections. Its purpose was to discourage — but not prevent—a candidate from standing if he or she had no chance of success. Over the years the cost of the deposit in real terms has fallen, and the value of the benefits conferred by standing has increased. At its present level the deposit clearly serves no purpose whatever. In effect, the provisions introduced in 1918 have virtually been


repealed by default to the point where today, to have the value it had in 1918, the deposit would have to be more than £2,300.
The results are easy to see. At the 1966 general election there were 94 candidates who did not belong to any of the major political parties. At the 1983 general election there were 474. At the Bermondsey by-election in 1983 there was a total of 16 candidates, and at the Chesterfield by-election earlier this year there were 17. Most of those candidates have no serious interest in, or the remotest chance of, being elected to Parliament, which, after all, is what an election is about. Yet they acquire considerable cheap publicity. They confuse and distract electors from the important issues, and in some cases deliberately try to make a mockery of the election or to obtain commercial gain out of it—[Interruption.] If Labour Members seek to scoff at that, they need only to ask their right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) of his experience and the comments that he made.
The right to free postage alone is worth £8,000 in average sized constituencies. Raising the deposit to a sensible level will ensure that standing for Parliament becomes a matter which must be thought about seriously, not just a prank entered upon after a whip-round.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the case for an increase in the deposit has been put forward over a number of years from many different points in the political spectrum. The Select Committee's recommendation that the level of the deposit should be increased to £1,000 was, as I have said, unanimous. Our consultations with the political parties suggested that the deposit is still the means of regulating candidatures which commands the most support in the House.
The conclusion we drew was that Parliament wished to reform the deposit system and that the right increase would be to the £1,000 recommended by the Select Committee. But the precise figure chosen is bound to some extent to be arbitrary and a matter of judgment.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will be listening carefully to the views expressed today and will reflect upon them before preparing the final form of legislation. I hope, therefore, that there will be no need to take up dogmatic positions on a precise figure, but I also hope that the debate will take place in the full appreciation that even an increase to £1,000 would put the level of the deposit at less than half the level at which it stood in real terms when it was originally introduced.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Home Secretary talked about the free post as if it were something that could easily be acquired by a candidate, but omitted to mention that a candidate must address envelopes to every elector in the constituency in order to take advantage of the free post. He must therefore have some support to carry that out. How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard that as something that can be purchased merely by the payment of the deposit?

Mr. Brittan: The answer is that we are proposing to do away with the requirement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The hon. Gentleman will find that that is in the White Paper.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Home Secretary recognise that many of us believe that a deposit

is required, but there are different points of view? The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about not being dogmatic. Had I been on the Select Committee, as I was in the last Parliament, I should not have voted for the substantial increase, to £1,000, that it recommends, although I concede that the worth of the original £150 is now over £2,000. Might it not be better to think in terms of £500 or £600 and of retaining a threshold, if not of 12·5 per cent., as it is now, of about 10 per cent.?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has put forward a particular point of view, and others who catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will no doubt put their views. I have nothing further to say at this stage than that we concluded that the right increase was the recommendation of the Select Committee, although it favoured the lower threshold. We listened carefully to other views, such as the one expressed by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick.)
Some hon. Members, I know, are opposed to a financial test, such as the deposit, as a matter of principle, although it has been part of our arrangements for so long. However, neither the Government, nor in its turn, the Select Committee, which considered alternatives, were persuaded of the merits of the alternative that has been most frequently canvassed—an increase in the number of signatures on the candidate's nomination paper. One hundred signatures, as the Liberal party proposed in its evidence to the Select Committee, would not provide a meaningful test of the candidate's support in the constituency. The least serious candidates regularly find no difficulty in polling 100 votes or more in an average sized constituency. Experience shows that they could easily drum up the signatures of 100 electors who purportedly assent to or support their candidature. To provide a real test of the candidate's support, the number of signatures would have to be increased to 1,000 or more. As we say in the White Paper, checking this would put an altogether excessive burden on the acting returning officer as well as distracting candidates and party workers from the real business of the election. Any hon. Member, whatever his party, who has doubts about that should have a word with his agent. I think that he will find that that is amply confirmed.
Increasing the deposit to £1,000 has also been represented as an attack on the smaller or poorer parties but that is not a fair criticism. We are not proposing that a candidate should pay £1,000 for the privilege of standing for election. To do so, I agree, would be indefensible, although it is worth pointing out that successful and unsuccessful candidates habitually spend several times that amount in constituency election expenses alone. The proposal is that the candidate should deposit a sum of money with the returning officer approximately one fortnight before polling day and that it should be returned to him as soon as practicable thereafter, unless he forfeits it. I simply do not believe that political parties that can reasonably expect to poll 5 per cent. of the vote would have any difficulty in persuading a bank manager to lend them money. For what it is worth, the interest payment over the period would be approximately £6. Furthermore, the Bill will include a provision requiring the deposit to be returned no later than the day after the result is declared.
s
Finally, I again remind the House of the significance of our proposals for a reduction of the threshold. At present a candidate forfeits his deposit if he polls less than


one eighth of the total votes cast. The Select Committee believed, and we agree, that that is too severe. Many candidates who have a serious contribution to make to the election debate cannot clear a threshold set at that level. The Select Committee proposed a reduction from 12·5 per cent. to 7·5 per cent.—a very substantial reduction. We have gone even further to protect the interests of minority candidates. Under our proposals, a candidate will forfeit his or her deposit only if he or she polls less than 5 per cent.—one twentieth of the total votes cast. Labour Members seem to think that that is too low.
Looking across all that was covered by the Select Committee, it is difficult to doubt the public desire for change, for the right for British people overseas to vote, for the right for people on holiday to vote, and for a change in the deposit arrangements reflecting the passage of time since 1918. We cannot allow the law to remain frozen because full agreement between all the parties on all the issues eludes us. It always will. The Select Committee has made its proposals in the light of the evidence before it, and we have made ours in the light of the considerable consultations that I have described. It is now for the House to express its views.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
regrets that the Government's reply to the First Report of the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1982–83, proposes to extend the right to vote to people who have chosen to live abroad and have no more than a tenuous connection with a United Kingdom constituency, while limiting the opportunity to vote of people permanently resident in the United Kingdom.
In a democracy, the most precious possession of any citizen is the vote. Democracy depends on the free, uninhibited use of the vote in a secret ballot. The history of our country has more than once been changed by the collective result of individual people exercising the power of their vote in the solitude and privacy of a polling booth. The right to vote must be accompanied by the right to seek votes—the right of any person, however humble or eccentric, to offer himself or herself to the electorate as candidate.
Any proposed legislation affecting electoral law must be judged on two criteria. First, does it protect the right of any citizen to be a candidate in an election? Secondly, does it protect the secrecy and incorruptibility of the ballot, while making it as simple and convenient as possible for the elector to use that ballot?
The White Paper contains several proposals to which no one can validly object, particularly on technical matters relating to the electoral register. I agree with the Home Secretary that it is essential to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the register. The White Paper accepts one highly important recommendation made by the Select Committee, which we fully endorse—that citizens of the Republic of Ireland should retain the right to vote in United Kingdom elections. We welcome the determination that has been shown by the Government of the Republic of Ireland to ensure that reciprocal voting rights in elections to the Dail should be available for United Kingdom citizens resident in the Republic.
Although there are several items in the White Paper that are uncontroversial between the parties, we in the Labour party have tabled the amendment because we feel that the Government's proposals fall short of the criteria that I have

cited. Although the Government, in paragraph 4, fairly say that none of the parties has a right to a veto over changes in electoral law, I hope that the Government will equally accept that it would be an error on their part to impose on unwilling participants in the democratic process controversial changes in electoral law that could be far-reaching in their effect and might even affect the outcome of elections. The absence of unanimity in the House and the country applies to the Government's proposal that the parliamentary deposit should be increased to £1,000.
In paragraph 5·7 of their response, the Government claim that they are proposing the increase to £1,000 in accordance with the unanimity on this point in the Select Committee's report. However, the Select Committee report was unanimous on numerous other recommendations that the Government have seen fit to ignore or reject.
The Government's attitude to the Select Committee seems to be similar to the approach that they adopted to the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure when they were drafting the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Where the Government agreed with the Royal Commission, they cited its recommendations in support of their decisions. Where they disagreed, they said that it was their right to disagree—heads they won, tails the Royal Commission lost—and it is the same with the Select Committee. Let not the Government pretend, therefore, that the Select Committee report is to them a species of holy writ.
In announcing the Government's decision to increase the deposit to almost seven times its present size, the White Paper states its reasons with what I regard as a repulsive crudeness. It says that many of the candidates who do not belong to any of the major political parties
poll only a few score votes; they have no apparent intention of winning the election but may seek only to discredit or impede the campaigns of those who do.
That could have applied to the Conservative candidate in the Gorton constituency at the general election.
The White Paper continues:
In the Government's view the proliferation of merely frivolous or disruptive candidates makes a mockery of the electoral process.
Who is to say if this or that candidate is frivolous or disruptive? The Home Secretary referred to the Chesterfield by-election. In that by-election, there was a candidate who based his campaign on opposition to nuclear war. The electorate gave him only seven votes, but is anybody to say that his candidature was a frivolous one, devoted as it was to the most transcendental issue of our time? Indeed, the Chesterfield by-election is a notable example of the invulnerability of the electorate to alleged frivolity or disruption. There were 17 candidates in that by-election—more than at any other parliamentary by-election in the history of our country—yet the electorate was not distracted. It showed itself perfectly able to distinguish between candidates, to pick out those to whom it wished to give substantial support, and to come to a clear decision. In doing so, it voted very heavily—a 76 per cent. poll. How can it be said that that campaign, with a record number of candidates, was disrupted by being contested by so many?
Let us examine the matter in another way. In the Glasgow, Central by-election in 1980, the Conservative candidate obtained only 707 votes. She was the candidate of the Government. Does the Home Secretary believe that the Government's own nominee was a frivolous and disruptive candidate? That candidate is now the hon.


Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). When did the hon. Lady stop being frivolous and disruptive? At what mile post along the road from Glasgow, Central to Inverclyde did it happen—was it at three miles, was it at five miles? Indeed, did the hon. Lady ever stop being frivolous and disruptive? She is the same person now as she was then. Have an extra 12,962 votes effected a fundamental change in her personality and politics?
What about another candidate — the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)? Nine years ago, when she stood in the first ballot for the Tory leadership, many regarded her candidature as not something to be taken seriously, but simply a means of having a go at the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) before the serious opponents to him raised their heads above the parapet in the second ballot. But the right hon. Lady was elected and, in due course, became Prime Minister. Many people will agree that she is certainly disruptive, but frivolous, decidedly not.
In giving evidence to the Select Committee, the national agent of the Labour party, Mr. David Hughes, referring to the Labour party, said:
we do not feel that the fixing of the deposit should be at such a level as materially to deter people from standing for Parliament.
The Labour party is firmly against the Government's proposal that the deposit should be raised to £1,000, even with the accompanying change which would reduce the qualifying percentage for retention of the deposit to 5 per cent. We hold this view with magnificent altruism for, under the Government's proposals in the White Paper, the Labour Party would have lost only six deposits in the 1983 general election. Nevertheless, we oppose this proposal as a financial deterrent to the fundamental democratic right to be a candidate in a parliamentary election. For myself, I do not believe that the system of deposit any longer fulfils any useful purpose.
An acceptable change might be the one that the Home Secretary has dismissed — to increase the number of nomination papers required. The Home Secretary said that a given number of signatures might not necessarily reveal a volume of support in a constituency. Does £1,000 reveal a volume of support in a constituency? All it reveals is the possession of, or access to, £1,000. A requirement of the kind that I have mentioned could be a better safeguard against any potential frivolity than a deposit even of £1,000. If there are frivolous candidates, this change will not eliminate them. It will mean simply that only rich frivolous candidates will go on being able to stand—but perhaps that is what is meant by Tory democracy.
Another example of Tory democracy is undoubtedly the proposal that British residents abroad should have the right to vote in our parliamentary elections for a period of seven years after their exile, which may well be permanent, voluntary and financially rewarding. This proposal the Select Committee opposed. It said that it could have "far-reaching consequences", and ruled it out on practical grounds. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Parry Barr (Mr. Rooker), in his intervention in the Home Secretary's speech, gave just one example of the practical problems that might arise if the proposal were enacted. The Select Committee said that this proposal
might have the effect of altering the whole character of British elections.

The Select Committee was unanimous in rejecting it. Yet the Government are to give an unascertainable number of people a privilege that goes right against the principle stated in paragraph 2.4 of the White Paper, that
the basis of the British parliamentary system is the representation of constituencies.
These people to whom the Home Secretary proposes that the vote shall be given will not be living in the constituency where they will be able to claim the right to vote. They may never have voted in that constituency. While they lived there—they may have lived there for a short time only—they will have been a self-selected electorate. The vote will be exercisable not by a defined and finite group, as happens now, but by people who decide that they feel like having the vote, and who do not live too far away to be able to post back their votes in time.
Their use of the right will be a farce. They will not be able to meet their candidate, to question the candidate or be canvassed by someone calling on behalf of the candidate. They may not receive any election literature, and they may therefore know nothing of the candidate except his or her name and party. Furthermore, they will have an anomalous status as constituents, and hon. Members may have an anomolous status as their Members of Parliament. If a constituent of mine wishes me to visit him or her at his or her home to discuss a problem, I am able to do so. But what if I have a constituent who has moved abroad? Will I have the right to travel and meet that person? If they are constituents, they have the right to a service from their Members of Parliament. Will there be a free post to enable us to communicate with them?

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: And telephone calls?

Mr. Kaufman: And telephone calls, as my hon. Friend reminds me. They will have an anomalous status as constituents.
The Select Committee stated the case against this fancy franchise compellingly when, in paragraph 44, it said:
such an increase in the overseas vote would to some extent alter the traditional relationship between candidates at general or local elections and the voters whose support they are seeking to enlist. Hitherto, in the great majority of cases, the candidate has been able both to speak directly to the elector either on the doorstep or in a public place and personally to ensure that his election literature is delivered to every household. Problems of communication could arise both between candidates and overseas voters at election time and, indeed, between Members and their constituents thereafter.
Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) pointed that out.
It would be difficult to arrange with any certainty for election literature to be delivered to addresses abroad, or to take steps to see that voters in foreign countries were kept in touch with national or local issues or made aware of the character and qualifications of the various candidates.
The Select Committee rightly described some of those who will be given this franchise as people who have
forfeited their claim to participate in this country's affairs".

Mr. Beith: Surely the very difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman describes about addressing such electors, getting literature to them, and representing them as a Member of Parliament, already exist in respect of those electors who are resident abroad but who can afford to maintain a residence in a constituency in this country. Why should they have the advantage of being able to vote here while those whose overseas income is not so great do not?

Mr. Kaufman: It is no solution to seek to correct one anomaly by creating an even greater one.
Those absentee voters could have a decisive influence on this country's affairs. In a close election, they could even decide its outcome. In the 1964 general election, 84 such voters, located in three constituencies, could have deprived the properly elected Government of their majority. Unless this Government change their mind, they could make it possible for tax exiles to decide the taxes that are paid by people living and working in this country. Property speculators living abroad could decide what pension should be paid to people who have worked all their lives in this country.
Moreover, the allocation of the right to this vote will be invidious. Although citizens of the Irish Republic and Commonwealth citizens living here rightly have the vote, if they leave this country, even temporarily, they will lose it, while British citizens who have left this country permanently will retain it for seven years and, moreover, painlessly. Once they have made the initial application, all responsibility for their remaining on the list will devolve on the electoral registration officer. He will be required to write to the absentee elector to ensure that he still wishes to vote, and the elector will be able to retain his vote without any need of further consular certification. A simple declaration will do. As we shall shortly see, the tax exile will retain the franchise with greater ease than is involved in a postal vote for the tax-paying lorry driver, fisherman or commercial traveller resident in this country.
The proposal is quite unacceptable and the Government would be well advised to withdraw it. It is not only unfair but dangerous, since it removes large numbers of voting papers from any possible control by the returning officer.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: The right hon. Gentleman has objected quite strongly to British people who work abroad having a vote. Presumably all those objections also apply to service voters. Do I take it that he wishes to withdraw the service vote?

Mr. Kaufman: Of course I do not for one moment say that. It is fatuous of the hon. Gentleman to suggest it. Apart from anything else, service voters retain an address in this country. If the hon. Gentleman did not know that, he obviously did not even profit from losing the seat to which he was originally elected.
The danger of large numbers of voting papers being removed from the control of the returning officer also applies to the Government's proposal for allowing postal votes to those on holiday. There is no doubt that what the Government propose could amount to postal voting on demand.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): rose—

Mr. Kaufman: We support votes for holidaymakers. However, the Government will have to provide genuine safeguards if they are to dispel the misgivings voiced very powerfully by the memorandum to the Select Committee which was submitted by the Conservative and Unionist Central Office. Its arguments are valid. It said:
although it is clearly unjust that electors should be unable to vote at particular elections because of absence on holiday"—
I certainly concur with that sentiment—
it is impracticable to extend absent voting to those persons without opening the way to providing postal or proxy voting facilities on request to all electors who so desire. The

consequences of this move might be very far-reaching indeed and such a move might have serious implications bearing in mind that the election procedures in this country have been built round legislation designed to allow persons to vote in polling stations in conditions of complete secrecy and free of any undue influence at the time of voting.
Those powerful arguments were voiced by the Conservative and Unionist Central Office. In our view, they do not invalidate the desirability of providing postal votes for holidaymakers, but it is very important that the dangers to which those comments draw attention should be taken into account and, where possible, dealt with.
While holiday votes will be very easy postal votes to obtain, others will not be assisted in their wish to vote by post.

Mr. John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you aware that striking miners are on the Terrace of the Houses of Parliament and are selling a newspaper that I believe is called Militant Tendency? Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): That is a matter that will be looked into by the appropriate authorities.

Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should hurry down to the Terrace, as he might learn something that would broaden his point of view.
Why will the Government not extend the postal vote to those taking part in parish elections, and why are they making it more difficult for itinerent workers to vote? The proposal to require a new application for each election from those absent from home because of their occupation will discriminate invidiously against those whose work takes them away from their homes.
A memorandum from the Transport and General Workers Union illustrates the difficulties that will ensue from the Government's proposals—proposals again, let it be noted, not stemming from any recommendation of the Select Committee. I shall quote in detail from the memorandum, because it makes the argument very strongly:
Within the TGWU we have approximately 25,000 members in the fishing industry, 172,000 HGV drivers and 300,000 construction workers as well as many thousands working different types of shifts in the manufacturing industry, the health service and local authorities … the present arrangements for postal votes by reason of occupation are far more satisfactory than those proposed in the White Paper. A member who has once secured a postal vote does not have the added burden of having to apply again for each election and, indeed, can make an application between elections, if necessary … the specific sections of memberships we have mentioned are not necessarily away from home on a regulated, predictable basis. A lorry driver for a road haulage company, for example, may have little or no advance warning of journeys which will incur an overnight stay away from home. Often a driver leaves on a journey anticipating a return to the depot on the same day, but unexpected loading or delivery problems delay the return or prevent it altogether. The driver may have had several months of relatively short-haul driving and then, unexpectedly, be sent on a long-haul drive on polling day. For these reasons we have always tried to encourage our HGV members to apply for postal votes if they genuinely believe they may be prevented from voting in person.
Secondly, to give another example, a fisherman or construction employee working for a contract may be away from home during those crucial few days when an application must be made and return home too late to be eligible even though they know they will also be away on polling day. Again, these are the type of members we have always encouraged to have a 'permanent' postal vote.
We must face facts and understand that the need to apply for a postal vote is not in the forefront of anyone's mind when they


are required to work away from home. It is only when deprived of a vote that an elector realises they could have made use of this facility. By requiring a specific reason why a voter will be unable to vote in person in a particular election, rather than citing and describing the nature of employment, we believe many of our members will be in difficulties. For example, whereas 'long-distance lorry driver' may have been sufficient information until now, a Returning Officer may require to know the exact nature of the journey to be undertaken together with certification that the information is correct … it is generally impossible for many of our members to give this information accurately. Under these circumstances it will also be impossible for anyone, even the employer, to countersign it. Bearing in mind that the proposal is that these applications must be processed afresh for every single election, we believe that many of our members will be seriously deterred from bothering to apply.
What the TGWU says applies to hundreds of thousands, if not more, who are not its members. It is intolerable that through this proposed change a fisherman battling on the high seas may be deprived of his vote while a tax exile sunning himself in Monte Carlo will have a vote bestowed upon him.
If the Government are really worried about any potential abuse under the present system, they have a much simpler remedy. At present, electoral registration officers are given power to review their indefinite postal vote records at their discretion. If they were required to do so, say every three years, abuse, if it exists, would be kept to the minimum.
Under the Government's proposals, on the other hand, grotesque anomalies will arise. This year, for example, a lorry driver or commercial traveller living in the Portsmouth, South constituency would already have had to apply three separate times for a postal vote—once for the local elections, once for the European Assembly elections, and once for the parliamentary by-election. Such a requirement would be a deterrent to voting by itinerant workers. But perhaps that is what the Government want.
The Government's proposals are also unnecessarily restrictive on those applying for postal votes on grounds of physical incapacity. The Government plan to remove the present discretion on counter-signature by someone other than a registered medical practitioner, and propose to add only the power to countersign by a registered nurse. They ought at least to include the warden or matron of an aged people's home or home for the handicapped. They ought also to see if there is a way of providing postal or proxy votes for those who fall ill or are otherwise incapacitated just before polling day. If in the days before an election a woman is rushed to hospital to have a premature baby, or if someone is operated on for emergency appendicitis, such electors ought not to be deprived of their vote.
It is essential that the rules be strictly upheld to avoid abuse, but the aim of the rules should be to facilitate voting rather than to impede it. It must be said that paragraph 3.22 of the White Paper is unacceptably invidious in excluding Northern Ireland from the new absent voting arrangements. The Home Secretary must change his mind on that matter. Such an arrangement would turn electors in the Province into literally second-class citizens. It defies any standards of fairness that a current resident of Belfast on holiday in Majorca should not be able to vote, while next to him or her on the beach a former resident of Belfast who has gone permanently to live in Majorca will be able to vote. Such anomalies are simply not tolerable.
Nor is it easy to understand why the Government should have decided that in future polling in parliamentary elections should end at 9 pm instead of 10 pm as at present. The White Paper says that the final hour is little used. But evidence given to the Select Committee showed that in the 1979 election 4 per cent. of the votes were cast between 9 pm and 10 pm. that may not sound very many, but in fact it means that 1,250,000 people voted during those 60 minutes.
The Home Secretary rightly showed concern this afternoon at the danger of hundreds of thousands not on the electoral register losing their chance to vote. All the more important, therefore, to ensure that hundreds of thousands on the register have the maximum possible chance to vote. When we are all agreed that not enough people vote in parliamentary elections, why on earth are the Government proposing a change that will reduce the poll still further? The White Paper laments that the final hour
adds to an already long day for returning officers and their staff.
But, Mr. Speaker, we are speaking about one long day every four or five years. Are 60 minutes too much to bestow on the supreme manifestation of British democracy—the election of a Member of Parliament?
Labour Members hope that the Government will think again about the matters that I have mentioned and about other issues that will be raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. This debate is about the fundamental issue of representative democracy in Britain. The parliamentary majority is temporarily in the hands of the Government, but the franchise belongs to us all. No Government should trifle with the exercise and practice of our democracy, or meddle with it without sound reasons. As notice to the Government to take due care of every citizen's most precious right, I call on hon. Members to vote for our amendment tonight.

Mr. John Hunt: I am one of those who believe that our new Select Committee system has immeasurably strengthened the power and influence of the individual Back Bencher in the House and has also significantly increased the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. Nowhere has that been more evident than in the work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I have been privileged to be a member since its formation in the previous Parliament.
The Select Committee's report on the Representation of the People Acts, which we are debating today, has boldly tackled a number of key issues which have been fudged and shelved for far too long. This afternoon I want to confine my remarks to two of the Committee's most important recommendations—those relating to absent voting and to the deposit. Let me say at once that I warmly endorse and support the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations on both those issues. The Government's reply to the Select Committee's report makes it clear that when an election is called in May or June—which seems increasingly to be the pattern nowadays—well over 1 million people could be away on holiday on polling day.
Anyone who has canvassed for any political party in the past two general elections must have been struck by the shock and anger that are caused when people going on holiday realise that no arrangements can be made for them


to register their vote. They feel deprived and cheated, and I firmly believe that it is up to Parliament to respond to such feelings of bitterness and resentment when they are expressed in that way by substantial numbers of our fellow citizens. Therefore, I am delighted that, thanks to the timely prodding of the Select Committee, the Government are now prepared to legislate to safeguard the voting rights of those on holiday.
It was also encouraging to hear the tentative support which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) gave to the proposal, subject, as he said, to certain safeguards. I felt that his commitment did not carry the most enthusiastic appreciation of his Back Benchers. I hope that he will find it possible to carry his party with him on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman quoted some evidence given to the Select Committee by the Conservative party. Equally, one must remind him that in the Select Committee it was his Labour colleagues who were saying that, despite what they called their good will to the idea, they still found it difficult to overcome the technical objections to the change. I have a feeling that that view still holds sway among some sections of the Labour party. In fact, on examination their technical objections are quite thin and trivial.
In their amendment to the Select Committee's report, the Labour Members maintained that such a large extension of the vote to holidaymakers would mean giving absent voting on demand. Their amendment went on to say:
It would transform elections if a substantial proportion of the vote was cast outside the polling stations in circumstances which were not under the control of the Electoral Registration Officer.
They concluded:
The threat of large scale corruption would be very real.
That was the view expressed by the Labour Members of the Select Committee in the last Parliament.
We were not, of course, given any indication of how such large-scale corruption could arise, and in my view it was really a bogus point. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps in the course of the debate those who can give such evidence will provide it. We shall listen carefully to their contributions.
As I said, we were encouraged to hear the right hon. Gentleman give his commitment to support the proposal for votes for holidaymakers, although significantly the Labour party's amendment to the motion today does not specifically refer to the matter.
Returning to the objections that were raised by the Labour Members of the Select Committee, it is worth making the point that in any case the holiday vote will not be a substantial proportion of the total vote. The Government's estimate, as we have heard, is that the extension of the vote to holidaymakers could result in an increase of up to 600,000 absent voters at a general election. That, together with the 600,000 or so who already vote by post, still represents only 3 per cent. of the total electorate. It is surely better for that 3 per cent. to be given the vote rather than deprived of it.
The Government have already outlined the safeguards which will apply, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in his speech today showed that those safeguards may be further strengthened when the legislation is presented to the House. To assert, as some hon. Members do, that the change will lead to large-scale

corruption seems to me to be a slander upon our fellow citizens, and I am still awaiting the evidence for such statements.
With regard to the deposit, the present level of £150 is, I think, universally regarded as outdated and absurd. The mere fact that it has remained unchanged for 66 years, a record rivalled only by the dog licence, which still stands at the equivalent of 7s 6d—a level fixed as long ago as 1878—is an indication of how irrelevant it has become at the present level.
I remind the House that the Select Committee itself unanimously recommended £1,000. Therefore, it is rather surprising to hear that the Labour party is now so implacably opposed to that figure. The only point of contention within the Select Committee was on the level of threshold—whether it should go from the present 12·5 per cent. to either 7 per cent. or 5 per cent. The Home Secretary has accepted the minority view of the Select Committee that it should be reduced to 5 per cent. I am delighted about that, because I was part of that minority view. It is encouraging to feel that our view has been taken into account.
It is the lowering of the threshold which provides the genuine safeguard for any minority parties, as is made clear in the Government's response. It means that, with 50,000 people voting, it requires a vote of only 2,500 to save one's deposit. Yet I see that the alliance amendment to the motion before us today talks of placing
an unacceptable and unjustified financial obstacle in the way of legitimate independent and minority candidates".
I think that that is an exaggeration, and I am sure that we must set against it the fact, which has been brought out in the Government's reply and in our debate so far today, that the free postage facility which is available to all nominated candidates is now worth £8,000 in an average-sized constituency.
The leader in The Times today writes of the
bizarre and impudent party labels
which have appeared on ballot papers in recent elections. The article goes on to say:
An election is too important an affair to be made ridiculous by the antics of some recent clown candidates and commercial opportunists.
I wholly endorse that comment.
Reference has already been made in the debate to the Chesterfield by-election earlier this year, where the bemused voters were offered everything from Death off the Roads to Yoga and from Official Acne to the Monster Raving Loony party. I believe that, irrespective of the number of votes they received, such candidates bring the whole election process into disrepute, and should therefore be positively discouraged. Yet under the present system each one of those clown candidates is entitled to the free distribution of his election literature to every voter. As The Times has pointed out, they often have a commercial interest.

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman know that virtually none of those candidates succeeded in using the free post at the Chesterfield by-election?

Mr. Hunt: That is their problem and not mine. I emphasise that there can be, and sometimes is, a commercial element in those who stand under such very odd labels.

Mr. William Powell: Does my hon. Friend believe that anyone standing for election with a


commercial interest in mind would be deterred by a deposit of £1,000, when £8,000 of free postage is available?

Mr. Hunt: I am talking now about the present system. Under the present system the candidates pay £150 and can have the free postage available to them.
Let us take the example of a local health food shop proprietor, who could stand under the label of the Back to Nature candidate. He would be able to distribute his election literature purveying his own merchandise, and that could be used for commercial purposes in the course of an election. Even if the deposit were £1,000, I still maintain that that would be of some benefit and advantage to him. It is an abuse which should be stopped by this House.
I should like to put one further point to the House which I hope will receive more universal approval. Under the present system, the valid nomination of 50 candidates entitles the party concerned to claim the right of free television time to promote its policies. There is some evidence that racist groups such as the National Front and the British National party nominate candidates, not in order to mount a serious campaign in their constituencies, but simply to claim their quota of national television time, which, at 50 times E150—£7,500—is cheap at the price.
For all the reasons that I have given, I believe that the proposed increase of the deposit to £1,000 is both desirable and overdue. Therefore, I welcome the Government's response to this and the other recommendations from the Select Committee. I welcome, too, the commitment, which the Home Secretary has reaffirmed today, to bring these changes fully into effect well before the next general election. Most of us in the House, I think, would say, "The sooner the better."

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I shall restrict myself even more closely than the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) and will deal with only one of the four major subjects that featured in the Home Secretary's speech—the extension of absent voting. In cutting the Gordian knot of the problem of the holiday vote, the Government have taken a great swipe in offering absent voting
to all those who for whatever reason are unable or likely to be unable to vote in person on polling day.
Those are the words of the Government's reply to the report from the Home Affairs Committee.
A considerable principle is at issue in the wide extension which that measure implies of the opportunity to vote in absence either by post or by proxy. Since before the Ballot Act the vote has essentially been an act performed by the citizen in person. Although we have recognised categories of electors who merited an exemption, certain principles attach to voting which are seriously eroded by the spread of absent voting. Two of those principles are simultaneity and privacy.
We go to great lengths in our legislation to secure the utmost privacy for those who vote in person in the polling booth. We do not, because we cannot, secure such privacy for those who vote by proxy and for those who vote by post. The postal ballot paper goes into a house through the letterbox. What happens to it on the other side of the door,

and who sees it before it is put back into the envelope, are things beyond the control or knowledge of anyone. So we should be cautious of breaching, more than we feel fully justified, the principle of personal privacy in the casting of the elector's vote.
The principle of simultaneity has not I believe been mentioned so far; but it is important, and in recent decades we have been disposed to place more and more weight on it. As an election proceeds, events occur, things are said, the outside world may even change, in a way that modifies the intentions of substantial numbers of voters. It is therefore contrary to the objectivity of an electoral result that votes should be cast at different points of time extending back to a week or more before polling day.
Simultaneity is necessarily destroyed by the absent vote. Obviously it is destroyed when the absent vote is exercised by proxy, where the instruction may be given a week or two—in some cases, a year or two—before the election arises. But simultaneity is still destroyed in the case of an absent vote exercised by post, since several days—which we know from recent experience can be crucial days—have still to elapse between the moment the ballot paper is marked and the moment the poll closes.
In effect, despite the safeguards which the Government have so far proposed, the formula
unable or likely to be unable to vote in person on polling day
is tantamount to an absent vote at option. Paragraph 3.13 of the White Paper states that by way of safeguard the application should be authenticated, possibly by a limited range of person, who would certify
that to the best of his or her knowledge and belief … the circumstances described in the application are true".
Now, I believe that most of us have suffered during our elections from the phenomenon of the "aunt in Halifax". It seems to apply more often to Halifax than to anywhere else, but I make it clear that I have no particular animosity against Halifax. Well, invariably, the aunt in Halifax is extremely frail and in feeble health. The effect of an election upon her is that she is liable to die within 48 hours of polling day, resulting frequently in the disappearance from the field not only of a number of electors upon whose support one was relying, but, even more important, of a number of one's most cherished workers who place the obligation of attendance at a funeral above the obligation of securing, so far as in them lies, the election of their own candidate.
Let us consider an "aunt in Halifax" case. The applicant correctly states that he has an aunt, or close relative, who is seriously ill and may die at any time. That fact is incontestable, and it is incontestable that he is, therefore
likely to be unable to vote in person on polling day".
He may alternatively assert—I come here to the case of the holiday—that he has made plans to pay his usual annual visit to Blackpool and that he had most unfortunately, for certain family reasons which are in no doubt, settled upon the very week in which polling day falls. Who is to fault the statement which that applicant puts forward? And who, if he has put that reason forward—let us suppose—in good faith, will have any remedy if he changes his plans and decides that Blackpool a week later is just as good as Blackpool a week earlier?
There are unlimited grounds for applications to be made because someone is
unable or likely to be unable to vote in person
and I emphasise that no amount of certification can erode that liberty. So the House should be extremely chary of


making so large an inroad as this would represent into the essential nature of the poll—its simultaneity and its privacy. The fact that we have found good reasons for doing so in the many cases set out in the existing law does not provide a reason—it might be argued that it provides a counter-reason—for making so major and uncontrollable an extension.
The Government were clearly aware of the potentialities of abuse involved in the absent vote. The hon. Member for Ravensbourne seemed puzzled about the possibilities of abuse. It may occur to him that it could happen that in a particular area a considerable number of persons find reasons for voting by post and have got those reasons accepted. In that case, the list of postal voters in the election will show the households into which on a given day the postman will deliver postal ballot papers.
I should have thought the possibility of persuasion and duress in those circumstances needed no elaboration. In fact, hon. Members will confirm that the efficient agent and the efficient organisation have a habit of not leaving it entirely to the elector in receipt of a postal ballot paper to leave it behind the tobacco tin on the mantlepiece until after polling day, but make a point of calling to collect the completed ballot papers—[Interruption.]—perhaps we should draw a veil over what goes on before they have been completed—and ensuring that they arrive at the correct haven in time. I do not think it can be disputed that by their very nature arrangements for absent voting open the way to malpractices of various kinds due to the destruction of privacy implicit in them.

Mr. Wigley: As there is a need to have a witness of identity, people living alone and especially the elderly will be glad to have a witness. If that witness is a party political activist, pressure may be brought to bear at the time of filling in the form.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The argument is so strong that one has only to reflect on the circumstances of postal votes for examples of potential opportunities for malpractice to accumulate.
However, I do not need to make that case to the Home Secretary, who proposed on that very ground that this franchise should not be accorded to the electors of one particular part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland. I was very glad to hear him say today that he had a much more open mind about this following representations made to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux); and we also warmly welcome the statement of principle made from the Opposition Front Bench by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
I should have thought it would be intolerable to the House if a franchise made available to electors in other parts of the United Kingdom were withdrawn or denied to electors in one particular part of the United Kingdom. To propose that the franchise be withdrawn on the ground of potential abuse implies a confusion of reasoning. If the House legislates to provide an opportunity to exercise the franchise, it must surely also have the duty to make whatever provisions are necessary to safeguard that right against abuse. The two matters—the conferment of the right and the safeguarding of it—are entirely separate.
My hon. Friends and I believe that the integrity of the vote should be safeguarded by all possible means. We are glad to note that in the case of the absent vote for the infirm

it is proposed to tighten the certification requirements in the same way as they were tightened for Northern Ireland alone before the general election of 1983.
At that time, in a Standing Committee of this House, I objected to that safeguard being imposed on only one part of the United Kingdom, as though the possibility of malpractice existed only there, however prevalent it might be there. That minor grievance will, however, be removed if the very satisfactory proposal for certification by defined classes of medical practitioner is introduced; nor do I believe that that will cause difficulties, because in old people's homes or anywhere else there is always a medical practitioner or medical attendant whose certification it is not difficult to obtain.
So the Government cannot seriously contend that the remedy is not safeguard but denial, and we trust that when the legislation sees the light of day next Session it will not withdraw a right exclusively from the people of Northern Ireland. We would, though reluctantly, go a little further and say that we are happy to enter into consultation with the Home Secretary about any special safeguards that might nevertheless be thought necessary in Northern Ireland if there is to be this wider extension of absent voting.
I conclude with an observation which flows from the Home Secretary's own comments on the principle of uniformity of electoral law throughout the United Kingdom as represented in this House. I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman assert that principle in relation to the right to an absent vote and the safeguarding of that vote. He will recall, however, that there is disuniformity in relation to the European elections, where the law of the franchise in Northern Ireland is different from the law of the franchise in the rest of the United Kingdom, though the whole United Kingdom is going to the polls to elect representatives to the European Assembly. The Conservative Opposition of 1978 found that so intolerable that a future Home Secretary—perhaps two future Home Secretaries—as well as the present Prime Minister voted against the proposal; but since coming to office they have failed to make good that vote.
However, there is still opportunity for repentance, and I hope that, having stated the principle of uniformity of electoral law throughout the United Kingdom, the Government will give effect to it not just in parliamentary elections, but in other elections too. No doubt that can be covered in the Representation of the People Bill which we are to expect in the coming Session.

Mr. Gary Waller: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) in welcoming the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary waited for the Select Committee report be fore bringing forward his proposals. The fact that the proposals are in the form of a response to the Select Committee shows the value of the Select Committee system. My only regret is that, because the White Paper is in the form of a reply, it fails to consider one or two issues not included in recommendations by the Select Committee.
There is, for example, the question whether a candidate and his agent are entitled to have the electoral register in the form that they wish. At present, they have the right to a register, but they might wish to have it in computer compatible form. I know that that question has been


exercising many people's minds. I do not know whether it would be appropriate for inclusion in legislation, but I hope that the Home Office is considering it and that, if necessary, a proposal will come forward when legislation is introduced.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has previously been rather discouraging about the proposal that candidates should have a register in computer compatible form, if they so wished, on the rather spurious ground that the computer record would include data not necessarily appearing in the printed form. That seems strange as in no other form is it so easy to delete data to which the general public or candidates should not have access. I appreciate, however, that that issue is not central to the proposal before us or, indeed, to the legislation that will eventually come before the House.
In general, I agree with the proposals in the White Paper, especially with regard to the level of deposit and the reduction in the threshold. I wish to refer, however, to those points about which I have reservations.
Like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I have reservations about absent voting. Let me deal, first, with the citizen who is absent abroad. The European Communities Committee in the other place suggested that the right to vote from a qualifying address in the United Kingdom should lapse after 10 years rather than seven years. The White Paper accepted that the person's links with the United Kingdom are likely to have weakened significantly if he has lived abroad for as long as 10 years. Therefore, the Government have proposed a period of seven years. If those links are likely to have weakened so much after 10 years, as the Government say—and I entirely agree with them—I suggest that those links will have weakened substantially after eight years and four months. That could be the period during which a person remains eligible to vote, if, say, he goes abroad soon after the qualifying date. The period of seven years will not commence until seven years after the register has expired; that is, the register that comes into force four months after the qualifying date, and after which the citizen had gone abroad.
The question that was not considered in the White Paper is whether a person's links with a particular constituency are likely to have weakened significantly after seven or eight years, or even longer. The White Paper refers to links with the United Kingdom. When people vote, they do so for a candidate to represent a particular constituency. I guess that only a minority of those who stay abroad for so long would retain links with a particular constituency. Of those who returned later, many would probably return to a different constituency. After a period of eight years and four months, I suggest that the links with a particular constituency may be quite tenuous.
I would argue that perhaps five years is a fairer and more acceptable limit. It would work out in practice at an average entitlement of over six years. It would still ensure that all those in that position would be able to vote in at least one general election and one European Parliament election following their departure, if they so wished.
I accept, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that it is a matter of balance. On the other hand, there is a matter of principle that causes me more concern—the proposed arrangement for absent voting.
I shall not repeat the arguments that have been put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I agree substantially with what he said. I believe that the Select Committee under-estimated the risk of abuse when, in its report, it said that abuse
would be outweighed by the desirability of giving the vote to those who, due to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to exercise it in person.
In the White Paper, the Government accept that the number of postal and proxy votes would rise significantly. Thus, it follows that in many more constituencies than at present the outcome of an election could depend on the casting of absent votes.
Most of those who have called for postal voting for holidaymakers have not appreciated the difficulties that arise when defining a holidaymaker. The Select Committee drew attention to that problem.
It is significant that the Select Committee was not willing to go as far as the Home Office in giving absent votes, in practice more or less on demand, for a single election. I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that in theory a postal or proxy vote would not be given on demand, but I believe that that is largely the case in practice. The Select Committee was not willing to go as far as that, but it did not really face the problem of the definition of an absent voter, although it was mentioned. Nor did the Select Committee suggest a way to overcome the problem.
It seems extraordinary that it should be necessary to have the counter-signature of a general practitioner in order to obtain a postal vote on grounds of physical disability, whereas, to get a postal vote for any other reason, such as the wish to look after someone who is physically incapacitated, a counter-signature can be given by anyone who is registered as an elector. I appreciate that we are dealing with a single election in that case, whereas in the case of physical incapacity we may be talking about an extended period, but I do not believe that that is an important distinction. It is strange that we should tighten up the provision in relation to physical incapacity but relax the rules for other reasons.
The proposal that another elector should have to countersign is no safeguard at all. The possibility of abuse is greatly exacerbated by the proposal to give the right to vote by proxy to all absent voters. We know of the cases where the matron of an old people's home has completed and sent off perhaps as many as 30 or 40 proxy votes, without taking into consideration the preference of the supposed voters.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Steady on.

Mr. Waller: I believe that that sort of abuse happens, and I would not want to suggest that such a person would act in the interests of one political party or another. But such cases are likely to be multiplied many times over if the White Paper's proposals are implemented, although not necessarily in respect of persons who are physically incapacitated.
I find it difficult to see what there is to stop canvassers signing up large numbers of people who suggest on the doorstep that they do not intend to vote or go to the polling station in person. If an election takes place during a town's wakes week, it is possible that organisers in factories could go to considerable lengths to sign several hundred postal or proxy voters. It is not entirely far-fetched to suggest that political activists could arrive at a polling station to cast


several dozen votes on behalf of other people. I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend said about increasing safeguards, and I strenuously urge him to do so.
If applications for postal or proxy votes have to be countersigned in every case by a responsible person, such as a justice of the peace, the position would be very much better than that proposed in the White Paper.
As regards Northern Ireland, I agree that we have great difficulty there. If the safeguards were reinforced in the way that I have suggested, it might be possible to extend the proposals in the White Paper, as amended to Northern Ireland.
I believe that the two pillars of democracy are, first, the independence of the Boundary Commission and the maintenance of the right to a free and secret vote. Many have tried to throw doubt upon the independence of the Boundary Commission. There was a case in the recent European Parliament elections. The successful Labour candidate for Leeds explained that his majority was not as high as it should have been, because
Mrs. Thatcher had changed the boundaries to create a safe Tory seat.
If he really believes that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been going about changing the boundaries, he really must be a fool.
The changes made by the Boundary Commission have not been regarded as exactly helpful to the Government. I am inclined to think that that Euro-candidate did not really believe what he was saying, but that he was seeking to undermine public confidence in the Boundary Commission. It seems equally essential that we should not undermine confidence in the free, private and secret vote. I share the concern of the right hon. Member for Down, South that it should be seen as private.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in a democracy the primary concern is to ensure that the maximum number of persons can vote? Surely that is the basis of any democracy. I support part of the White Paper, but it does not go far enough in ensuring that people who have the right to vote—for example, those who move frequently or who move during registration for the electoral roll—are protected. How does the hon. Gentleman equate his democracy with the restriction on some people's right to vote?

Mr. Waller: It is important that those who have the right to vote should be able to do so. That is a concern of the White Paper, which I share. However, it is equally important that, when the election is over, doubts should not be cast on the result because it is suggested that individuals might have impersonated others, cast their votes on behalf of others, or voted because others did not consider that it was sufficiently important to go down to the polling station. In some countries, people are required to vote. I believe that people who do not wish to vote should be able to maintain that right just as strongly as if they wished to vote. Advantage might be taken of the fact that some people do not wish to vote by those who cast a vote in their place. Unless we build into legislation sufficient safeguards along the lines that I have suggested and that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has referred to, doubts could be raised. Provided those safeguards come about, I believe there are some

useful improvements in the White Paper, which will ensure that our democracy stands as firm in the future as it has in the past.

Mr. Sean Hughes: I shall address myself to the proposal in the White Paper to raise the deposit from £150 to £1,000.
It always intrigues me how such figures are arrived at. In the debate on the original proposal to introduce the deposit, on 15 August 1917, Sir George Cave said:
I do not know how they got at that figure, but probably it was a compromise between a larger and smaller sum.
In the same debate, Donald Macmaster said:
The extreme proposal was £250, but the real difference was between £100 and £200, and it was compromised at £150."—[Official Report, 15 August 1917, Vol. 97, c. 1254].
Times have not changed very much. The White Paper addresses itself to the figure in paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6. It rejects the outside figure of £2,000, and believes that it should be between £600 and £1,200. Therefore, in the proud tradition of their predecessors 66 years ago, the Government opted for a compromise of £1,000, although a true compromise would have been £900.
If there has to be a deposit at all, I opt for the lowest evil of £600. As we have been reminded today, the original decision in 1918 was based on the premise that the deposit was necessary because the state provided funding. The White Paper estimates that the funding is now worth £8,000 a candidate in an average English or Welsh constituency of 66,000 electors. That presupposes that every candidate can afford to buy envelopes and put something in them. Many, if not most, of the fringe candidates cannot afford to do so. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that that happened at the Chesterfield by-election. I can think of a few major parties at constituency level that can barely afford it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to paragraph 5.2. It states:
Many of these candidates poll only a few score votes; they have no apparent intention of winning the election but may seek only to discredit or impede the campaigns of those who do.
That is a fair bit of arrogance to stomach. I cannot believe that the opponents of my right hon. Friend, the former leader of my party, the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who secured a majority of 23,705 and polled 70·9 per cent. of the votes cast, honestly thought that they were going to win. Surely all hon. Members want, to impede the election of those who oppose them at the hustings. We should look at ways of increasing the number of sponsors for each candidate. Paragraph 5.4 of the White Paper dismisses that on the grounds that it would greatly increase the work of the acting returning officer. I have the greatest respect for my acting returning officer, the chief executive of Knowsley, Mr. Richard Penn. I cannot believe that he subscribes to the opinion that the electoral system should be devised to accommodate his convenience.
The opposite case, made consistently by the Home Secretary and others, is based on the fact that the true value of the deposit since 1918 has collapsed. The Government are obsessed by inflation, as nearly 4 million unemployed will testify. They are now applying their obsession to the electoral system. However, the argument about the deposit fails to address itself to whether the premise, based on a decision to introduce deposits in 1918, was correct. I recognise the defence for the introduction of the deposit, with regard to state funding, but if one reads through the


debate of 1917 one experiences the thinking of those in power, who were reluctantly accepting that modern times and universal suffrage had arrived and trying to find ways and means of controlling it.
Surely electoral freedom must mean freedom for those who wish to poke fun at it. I accept that society has the right to preserve some sort of order in its electoral system. I accept that our electoral system must guard against having hundreds of thousands of candidates standing in every constituency, but we must ensure that we do not encourage other unwelcome developments in our attempts to maintain that order.

Mr. Winnick: I have listened with much interest to what my hon. Friend has been saying. Does he agree that the argument is not about frivolous candidates as such? I am sure that neither he nor I are kept awake at night because of that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, there is little evidence, if any, that the democratic and parliamentary system is discredited as a result. He rightly quoted the example of Chesterfield.
Is there not another case that my hon. Friend might wish to consider? The Select Committee considered it in paragraph 70. Fascists, the National Front and so on have every right to stand, which no one wishes to deny. If there were no deposit, would it not make life easier for someone whose only objective was to promote racial hatred? There is nothing frivolous about that.

Mr. Hughes: I shall deal with that point shortly.
Even in the debate on the original Bill, in August 1917, the point that I have just made was recognised. A Mr. Athelston Rendall stated:
You often have men who come forward of very fine character representing the best elements in the division and the country, and the work they do is educational. I do not think we want to interefere with that sort of person. I agree that if you give that man and those who support him opportunities you necessarily give the undesirable person an opportunity; but I think it far better to be willing to suffer the evil in order to get the good."—[Official Report, 15 August 1917; Vol. 97, c. 1258.]
I commend that sentiment to the Government. I do not like the idea that people will be prevented from standing for election because they do not have the money to do so. Whatever formula the Home Secretary may produce to pretend otherwise, that is what will happen. A civilised society should be capable of ordering its affairs in some other way. Money is already a barrier to too many things, whether we think of privilege in education or in the Health Service or of access to much organised pleasure. I now fear that money is to be the determining factor in our electoral system.
Apart from the principle—which I believe to be paramount—fringe candidates, except people such as those to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred, can serve a useful purpose. I am sure that we all dislike attempts to fight elections on a single issue. Elections should be concerned with the general economic, political and social questions of the day. However, the essence of a democracy is surely that—even though the Prime Minister might disagree—political leaders are not omniscient. The basis of political freedom is that electors should be free to decide for themselves what they believe to be the main issues. If the

electors are ready to be convinced that every issue is subservient to the question whether the earth is flat, whether this House should be inhabited by lunatics, or whether the licensing laws should be abolished, what right have we to prevent them from expressing that point of view? Their right to do so would be particularly precious on occasions when the major parties all agree—although those occasions are so rare that I cannot think of an example.
In the past hundred years, fringe candidates have often pioneered an idea which later found acceptance. In 1906, T. Smith stood in Wigan as the candidate of the Lancashire and Cheshire Women's Textile and Other Workers Representation Committee, advocating the vote for women. T. Smith gained 28 per cent. of the vote, taking second place to the Conservative candidate. In the election of October 1910, H. L. Jacobs stood for St. Pancras, East as the candidate for the London Society for Women's Suffrage. Unfortunately, that candidate fared much worse, receiving only 22 votes. Various candidates for small trade unions and Socialist organisations were the forerunners of the Independent Labour party, the Labour Representation Committee and my own party. At that time, they were fringe candidates.
I do not wish to indulge in 19th-century history. More recent examples include Mrs. Van Der Elst who stood in Southwark, Central in 1940 as a candidate for the abolition of capital punishment. She gained 1,382 votes, or 16·8 per cent. of the vote. Thankfully, 25 years later, capital punishment was abolished. In 1967, R. G. Allen stood at Walthamstow, West in support of the introduction of commercial radio. He would not have had my support.

Mr. Winnick: And we lost the seat.

Mr. Hughes: We lost the seat by more than 63 votes, which was the number which that candidate gained—0·4 per cent. of the vote. Unfortunately, however, his campaign has landed us with commercial radio today.
In 1973, in the Lincoln by-election, someone demanded a referendum on Common Market entry. Again, unfortunately, we lost the seat, which was held by the sitting Member who had turned his colour. But two years later we landed ourselves with a referendum.
Paragraph 7 of the introduction to the White Paper asserts:
Changes in electoral law are not … the exclusive preserve of the political parties and others professionally concerned with the organisation or conduct of elections.
That is the one sentence of the White Paper which I wholeheartedly endorse. This debate ought to transcend party divisions, not because party political divisions are not crucial—they are, and I believe that it is correct that parties should present clear alternative programmes to the electorate—but because we must make provision for those who disagree. Of course I would prefer those who peddle obnoxious doctrines, such as members of the National Front, not to stand, but the way to combat them is to enforce and strengthen the law and so prevent such obscenities from being peddled.
Some people think that we are all pompous or irrelevant. Should they not have the right to test that point of view? Why should not those who believe in world government, stopping the deportation of black people, noise abatement, rail not motorways, traditional English food, women for life on earth, workers' charter with pensioner political power—people representing all those


points of view stood at the most recent general election—be able to test the strength of their support? I would prefer people to campaign for, and support, the Labour party, but if we live in a democracy they must have the right to test the extent of their support.

Mr. Bermingham: The right to vote, and the right to stand for election, are inextricably intertwined. One cannot deny one without denying the other, and by introducing a massive deposit we shall deny the right to stand.

Mr. Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend.
In the debate on 15 August 1917, Mr. Aneurin Williams made the essential point when he said:
I venture to say that the proportion of votes necessary to be a test of whether a candidate is a freak candidate or is not is one thing and the amount deposited is quite a separate and distinct thing, and that they ought not to be confused. It seems to me that if a man can get one voter he is justified in testing the opinion of the constituency, and that no one has the right to call him a freak."—[Official Report, 15 August 1917; Vol. 97, c. 1255.]
This debate should transcend party political divisions, because it concerns the system within which our political parties conduct their affairs. I had hoped that the Government would not use the occasion to test their own strength in the Lobbies, even if the proposal is stamped with the Government's image. The proposal is wrong. It is based on a false premise. It deserves to be defeated.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I agree with the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) that this debate should not be conducted on party political lines. It give me pleasure to agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the deposit. I thought his remarks contained a great deal of common sense. I am sure that both Front Benches will have taken note of his speech.
However, I welcome other parts of the White Paper, especially those about holiday voters. The most recent general election occurred in June, when many people were on holiday. As the election was called fairly suddenly, many electors of all political persuasions were not able to vote and felt extremely aggrieved. Quite rightly, they did not intend to cancel holidays which had been fixed for many months, and in some cases paid for. We all welcome the clearing up of that anomaly.
I have always thought it disgraceful that those who bat for Britain abroad, earning orders and money for our country, should be deprived of their vote while so doing. I whole-heartedly welcome the decision to allow people who live and, in most cases, work abroad and earn Britain money to be able to vote within a seven-year period. Seven years might be too short, but I shall leave that matter for another debate.
I have deep reservations about the Government's conclusions in the White Paper in regard to the deposit. I do not believe that it should be Parliament's role to discourage people from standing for election, no matter how frivolous or eccentric they might be. By increasing the deposit to £1,000, even though we are reducing the barrier to 5 per cent., we are putting undue pressure on smaller parties. I do not in any way wish to represent the Liberal, Social Democratic or nationalist parties in the House and I have no desire to see them elected, but their

case is overwhelming. Their funds will be tied up for three weeks or more and the interest payable will be considerable.

Mr. Waller: Is £6 excessive?

Mr. MacKay: Well, £6 multiplied by 650 is a considerable sum for a small party and I believe that it would put undue pressure on them. By increasing the deposit, we are playing into the hands of minority parties because the British people have a terrific sense of fair play. I am sure that minor parties will successfully appeal to that sense of fair play.
A more serious risk is that many very small parties will be exterminated by the deposit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Exterminated?"] I always bow to the judgment of my hon. Friends, so perhaps I should say "eliminated". Many respectable parties will not be able to put up candidates. Extreme parties that are repugnant to the majority of us, such as the National Front and the Socialist Workers party, will not be able to put up candidates. Some hon. Members might say, "So much the better. Good riddance to them—they are no part of the British political scene." However, by allowing candidates for such parties to stand and express their often obnoxious views, we provide an important outlet. We also prove to them and observers of the political scene how little support the National Front, the Socialist Workers and other extremist parties have. When did such parties last save a deposit? When did they last get a respectable vote? It was a long time ago, and every election at which we humiliate them proves that this is a civilised and modern country that does not approve of extremist politics. That would change if we increased the deposit.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I am most refreshed by what my hon. Friend has just said. Does he agree that the popular press and, I am afraid, some of the more irresponsible elements among the Opposition might dub imposition of the rather draconian £1,000 deposit an a ntidemocractic move by the Government?

Mr. MacKay: It is unfortunate for any Government or party to be seen to restrict parties or candidates who stand for Parliament. Some people might construe that as undemocratic.
Before the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) thinks that I whole-heartedly support his belief that 100 or 1,000 signatories should be found before a candidate can stand for election, I must observe that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, it is easy to forge signatures and to persuade people to sign even though they do not know what they are doing. The Liberal party's proposal would be administratively difficult and party activists believe that it is much more important to be out campaigning. What the hon. Gentleman suggests would take their eye off the ball.
I am persuaded by my right hon. and learned Friend's argument that the £150 deposit is an anachronism. It cannot be raised to the more than £2,000 which would take account of the rise in inflation. I fall out with the hon. Member for Knowsley, South, who compromised at £600. I am inclined to think that no deposit would be much more satisfactory.
Some hon. Members say that the free postal service could be terrifically abused. As has been said, the minor parties are normally so badly organised that they fail to use


that service. I acknowledge that a candidate might use the service for commercial purposes, but am I not right to say that the head postmaster in each area is required by law to read election material that is distributed? If a leaflet was purely or even primarily commercial, he would rightly refuse to allow it to go through the free post. Is it not therefore bogus to talk of the free service being abused?
When hon. Members feel that joke candidates demean Parliament, they are taking themselves a little too seriously. I have a sneaking suspicion that the majority of electors do not object to freak or unusual candidates. Rather, they are quite amused by them. It is obvious that intelligent electors in, for example, the case of the Chesterfield by-election are not confused when they arrive at the polling station to be confronted by a wide array of candidates. In that by-election, none of the frivolous candidates got more than a handful of votes. They all lost their deposits and the outcome of the election was not affected. I doubt whether anyone who intended to vote for one of the main parties voted for a frivolous candidate by mistake.

Mr. Mellor: I should like to take my hon. Friend up on his point about none of the frivolous candidates getting a respectable vote. I do not know whether he has spoken to our hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles). At his election someone calling himself the "real Conservative" candidate polled 1,400 votes in a critical marginal seat on the basis of that description. Does my hon. Friend really not think that that is an interference in the parliamentary system?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but if someone tries to impersonate another candidate—such was the case in Finchley with regard to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—it is possible to go to the courts and ensure that the second person's name or description is altered or withdrawn. I do not agree that people or groups of people who want to stand as independents within a party should be prevented from doing so as long as they are fairly described as independent Conservative, Labour or Liberal.
I am sure that now that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East has been elected and it has been seen what a first-class Member he is, an independent Conservative candidate will not stand there again, but if he does he will not obtain a four-figure vote. Knowing my hon. Friend, I am sure that he is capable of looking after himself.
At the same time as trying to catch the frivolous candidates, we will catch many other genuine candidates in our net. I believe that we will do a great deal of damage to our democracy and our free society. This wide-ranging debate has been an opportunity for hon. Members to express their views on the White Paper. I know that when the Government bring forward legislation—as they surely must in the next Session, when it will be broadly welcomed by most of us—they will take into account all the implications of raising the deposit. I hope that they will reconsider their earlier conclusions. It will be in the interests of the country and the House if they have a second look at this matter.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary for missing part of his speech. It was due to a meeting which I could not postpone and at which I had to be present.
The Scottish national party submitted evidence to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Representation of the People Acts. The Home Affairs Committee, being basically an English organisation, did not seek the views of every interested political party. The evidence which we put forward went some way beyond the findings of the Select Committee. I shall deal with the most important points, as we see them and our reaction to the Government's reply.
First, on the subject of the deposit, my party considers that the democratic processes should be open to all, regardless of ability to pay. We favour the abolition of the deposit and its replacement with a system whereby any candidate at a parliamentary election would have to produce a nomination list of 100 or 200 names of pledged supporters. We believe that that would show the degree of support that was available to any candidate.
We say that if the deposit is to be increased, it must be accompanied by a lowering of the threshold percentage of the vote required to recoup the increased amount. In the case of an increase to £1,000 per candidate, we suggested a reduction to 5 per cent. Having accepted the proposal to increase the deposit to £1,000, it is only right and just that the Government have accepted the need to lower the threshold to the figure that I mentioned.
The new higher deposit will hit all parties which do not, unlike the Tory party, have large amounts of cash at their disposal. That is extremely unfair. I am sorry that the Government have accepted that idea, because less-well-off parties will now find that vast amounts of money are tied up when they are most needed for campaigning.
That brings me to the important aspect of centrally funded electioneering by the parties. In that respect, the remit of the Home Affairs Committee was not wide enough. The Committee could not address itself to the radical changes which have taken place in general election campaigns over the past decade. Constituency expenditure is far less important nowadays than central expenditure on advertising campaigns and propaganda. My party considers it anomalous that there are restrictions on the amount of money that a candidate can spend legally, yet there is no accountability over the expenditure incurred by political parties' headquarters during the general election period.
Constituency limitations are based on good sense and fairness, because they prevent a wealthy candidate from using that wealth to his advantage. That principle now needs to be extended. In recent years, campaign emphasis has switched from individual efforts to central organisations, which use sophisticated advertising techniques backed by substantial expenditure. It is deployed nationally, but it is of course of undoubted benefit to individual candidates.
During the last general election campaign the Conservative party was widely reported as having spent £15 million centrally. That worked out at £20,000 per candidate. None of the other parties could possibly hope to match that level of expenditure. It is high time that new rules were evolved to limit such expenditure and make it accountable. We are disappointed that the Home Affairs


Committee was unable to make suggestions on that matter. We believe that the rules governing central expenditure and fair access to television coverage are so inadequate and unfair and the time has come for an overall review of current electoral law.
My party welcomes the Committee's recommendation that electoral registration forms should be available in appropriate areas in languages other than English, and that house-to-house canvassing should be carried out by people who can speak to householders in their own language in those areas.
I am pleased that the Government are to draw those recommendations to the attention of electoral registration officers. In the case of Scotland, I trust that this recommendation will be aimed primarily at providing a facility for those who wish to use the Gaelic language. I remind the House that there are well over 80,000 speakers of the language in Scotland. In areas where Gaelic speakers are concentrated, we believe that returning officers should publish notices of poll and other statutory notices in Gaelic or a Gaelic-English bilingual format. I have taken this matter up with the Scottish Office, but have met with no sympathy.
We are glad that the Government have accepted the principle of allowing those on holiday at the time of an election to exercise their democratic right. That is an aspect of the law which has needed reform for some considerable time. I heard the arguments which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) deployed against that, and there is some substance in his argument, but I weigh that against the possibility that a person might be disfranchised. The fact that the vote be registered is more important than the points that the right hon. Gentleman made.
All in all, the report is a useful contribution to the debate, but I am afraid that its recommendations fall far short of what is necessary and that the electoral laws will remain as out of date as the rotten boroughs before the Reform Act 1832.

Mr. David Maclean: I rise to speak not as someone who has great experience of our electoral system through countless years of service to the House, but as one who, in the past 12 months, has had considerable experience of some of its deficiencies and failures.
I was elected in the first by-election of the new Parliament, on 29 July 1983—the day that the House rose for the summer recess. I could not take the oath until the House resumed on 24 October. In the meantime, one of the fringe candidates in the by-election had served a writ on my agent, myself, my predecessor, the returning officer and the Daily Telegraph alleging all kinds of weird, wonderful, corrupt and illegal practices.
One of the allegations upon which he wished to nullify the election result was that not enough chairs were provided for his supporters at the count. From that the House will gain an impression of the sense of some of his averments. My case reached the High Court in Christmas week. Since it was privileged—and it was a vexatious case—it was happily dispensed with in a morning sitting. However, it was not until the end of January 1984 that Mr. Speaker was able to announce that I was the legally elected Member for my constituency.
I do not relate that catalogue of woe to elicit the sympathy of the House or Opposition Members, or to claim the prize for the Member who had the slowest or most inauspicious start to representing his constituency. I do so to show what nuisance, trouble, aggravation and expense can be caused under the present Representation of the People Acts because we have failed to provide sufficiently strict criteria. I say "criteria" because one test, which is what most right hon. and hon. Members have talked about today, is not good enough. We need a variety of tests and checks to ensure that mainly genuine and dedicated candidates appear on the ballot paper.
I was disappointed that the Home Affairs Committee did not recommend an increase in the number of signatures required on the nomination paper. I agree that some candidates may find it easy to collect 100 or 300 signatures. I believe that the number of signatures on a nomination form should be increased to 150. That would probably have eliminated the three fringe candidates in my election, who achieved 176 votes between them. It would have eliminated 10 candidates in the Chesterfield by-election, who achieved 230 votes, or 0·3 per cent. of the popular vote. Although I have opted for the figure of 150 signatures as the minimum necessary on the nomination paper, the fringe candidate who served the writ on me achieved exactly 150 votes.
Nevertheless, I believe that a signature is much more difficult to collect than a vote. [Interruption.] I genuinely believe that to be the case. It takes greater effort, time and political persuasion to collect as many signatures as votes. The question whether to increase the number of signatures revolves around this fundamental point: does a large number of signatures demonstrate a minimum level of support? That has nothing to do with the rather trivial argument, given in the Government's reply, that an increase in the number of signatures increases the risk of a nomination paper being held invalid on purely technical grounds. It gives the returning officer more work, but that is a different argument.
The invalidity argument is spurious. I shall happily treat any Minister in the Home Office to his favourite tipple in the Smoking Room if he will tell the House that he is brave enough to submit only one nomination paper with only 10 names appended to it for his candidature. I have never known an election agent who submitted fewer than two or three nomination papers, which had surplus names added to them in case a signature was declared invalid. If we were required to submit 150 signatures, we could easily permit 170 or more names on the nomination paper so that the contingency would be large enough to cover the risk of invalidity.
The one other element of the stricter criteria required is an increase in the deposit. I agree with the Home Affairs Committee and the Government that a real restitution to its true level of £2,000 would be an unacceptable increase. However, such matters are relative. If our deposit were £1,000 now, no one would complain that a 100 per cent. increase was unreasonable. The fact that it is currently £150 makes the increase seem more than it is because a £1,000 deposit involves a 600 per cent. increase on the present deposit. It is a great shame that we have neglected to increase the deposit since 1918, but we should not shirk our duty now. Many hon. Members regard £1,000 as a psychological barrier, and would feel happier if the deposit were set at anything up to £999 to avoid the excessive £1,000 figure.

Mr. John Maxton: Many people, including myself, believe that the deposit should be abolished completely, not increased.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman would have heard similar points made and the answers to them if he had been present earlier. I respect his belief, but I believe that he is wrong, for the reasons that I am giving.
It is a great shame that we did not increase the deposit from £150 to £1,000. The £1,000 figure appears high only because of the relative increase from the present appallingly low level of £150. Some hon. Members argue that an increase in the deposit discriminates against smaller parties, and that it is unfair to ask any party, especially a small party, to lay out £650,000 before a campaign starts. Suggestions are being made about delayed deposits, bankers' drafts and cheques, but I shall not delve into that now. It may be unfair to maintain the forfeiture level at 12·5 per cent., but, since it should be lowered, I do not think that the increased deposit is unfair.
The House and the Representation of the People Acts should not be concerned with political parties. We must work from the assumption that candidates find their own deposits and stand as individuals. If a backer, such as a political party, wishes to provide the deposit for its candidates, it does so of its own free will. Therefore, it does not have the right to complain to the House that its campaign strategy was affected because it was short of funds. Some hon. Members may say that that used to be the case and that it is now a legal fiction to imagine that it still happens in the majority of cases. Many legal fictions, such as the fiction that a child under a certain age cannot commit a crime, are founded on good, sound, moral and ethical arguments.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Gentleman's remarks were based on the assumption that an increase in the deposit to £1,000 would deter frivilous candidates. Now he says that the reduction in the forfeiture threshold to 5 per cent. would not hurt serious candidates. The Ecology party fielded 63 candidates at the general election. The hon. Gentleman would presumably contend that they were serious candidates, who addressed themselves to an extremely important issue. Each candidate lost his deposit, which cost the Ecology party £9,450. Not one candidate received 5 per cent. of the vote. Under the Government's proposals, that would cost the Ecology party £63,000. Would the hon. Gentleman support that?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has not listened to the fundamental principle of my argument. The House and the Representation of the People Acts should not be concerned with political parties. If a candidate believes that he will gain the support of the electorate, nothing that I have said will deter him from doing so. We should lay down some checks and stricter criteria so that a candidate has to provide his own deposit and collect 150 signatures as a mark of his support. If he reaches the lower threshold of 5 per cent., he will regain his deposit; if not, he will lose it. We cannot have a system that protects everyone from his own folly if he fails to attract sufficient political support.
It cannot be regarded as too onerous a burden to ask a candidate to produce what amounts to less than one fifth of the annual average industrial wage. It cannot be argued that a serious candidate, who sincerely wishes to represent a constituency, will be prevented from doing so if the

deposit is increased to £1,000. A higher deposit, coupled with a larger nomination form, would prevent the nonsense that we saw at Chesterfield, where the electorate were faced with 17 candidates on the ballot paper.
Finally, the 12·5 per cent. forfeiture is undoubtedly too high, because there is a danger that serious candidates with popular support could lose their deposits. In an average constituency of 66,000 electors, where 50,000 people voted, a candidate who achieved 6,249 votes would lose his deposit. That cannot be right. Therefore, we must lower the forfeiture level to 7·5 or 5 per cent. As I was critical of the Government White Paper earlier, I shall make amends by backing their suggestion of a 5 per cent. forfeiture level.
I have not analysed the general election results, but I accept that 97 per cent. of all independent candidates over the past 30 years have polled less than 5 per cent. I have analysed the figures for by-elections since the 1983 general election, and not one candidate outside the major parties gained more than 2·6 per cent. of the popular vote. Indeed, the average vote of the 32 fringe candidates who participated in those by-elections is 0·35 per cent. I do not think that people who obtain one third of 1 per cent. of the vote can claim that they have anything like a sizeable following in their constituencies and that the major parties are undemocratically trying to squeeze them out.
At the other end of the scale, four candidates from the major parties fell foul of the 12·5 per cent. rule and lost their deposits, even when they had an average of 2,160 votes each, and one candidate even had 11 per cent. of the popular vote. To those who argue that the raising of the deposit to i1,000 discriminates against the smaller parties, my answer is that that is simply not borne out. If we made the forteiture level 5 per cent., the smaller parties would retain their deposits. If they failed to achieve 5 per cent. of the popular vote, they could not argue that they deserved to keep their deposits in any event.

Mr. William Powell: The essence of my hon. Friend's argument seemed to be that candidates, not parties, stood for election, yet he now seems to be arguing that the deposits should be related to parties, not to candidates.

Mr. Maclean: I was trying to address my argument to those who say that this discriminates against the smaller parties, and I was trying to show that it does not. If I were to be true to my argument, I would say that I care nothing for parties. If this proposal discriminates against parties, so be it, but I maintain that it does not. Nor does it discriminate against individuals.
I do not think that this proposal discriminates against the smaller fringe candidates, but the House does not have a high moral duty to provide an easy platform for someone who cannot command the support of one third of 1 per cent. of the electorate. As the Home Affairs Committee points out, election candidates acquire considerable rights and privileges which are capable of being abused.
One of the fringe candidates in my election used his right of veto to ban all the other candidates from being interviewed on television or radio. It could be that my constituents were exceptionally grateful to him for keeping more electioneering off the television screen, especially as they were sated after the general election. But the destructive and vindictive use of that veto prevented viewers from seeing the seven other candidates and forming an opinion of them.
The right of veto is important, but it belongs to the television viewers and radio listeners who can switch over or switch off if they do not want to see or hear the political candidates. I have no wish to prevent such splendid characters as Lord Sutch from participating in any election. I found him to be a charming and pleasant gentleman, principally because he makes a point of not being bitter or vindictive in any by-election or general election which he fights.
I hope that we can continue to give a platform to genuine British eccentrics, fund seekers or those who want to capture the protest vote, as well as to those candidates from political parties which may have long and complex policies and principles. However, we ought not to give a platform to those who are seeking a cheap way of advertising their merchandise, who wish to abuse our political system or who merely have a chip on their shoulders. If we insisted on more signatures on the nomination form, a higher deposit and a lower forfeiture level, we would satisfy these aims, as well as providing a sensible, sound and equitable system.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Elitism is not dead. The hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean) demonstrated that, lurking in some parts of the Tory party—as the basis for the proposal of the £1,000 deposit—is the belief that if people's cheque books are not big enough they are not fit to test the electoral support that there may be for them. I am tempted to leave the hon. Gentleman to his hon. Friends, because several of them will probably take to pieces what he said.
When the hon. Gentleman said that Screaming Lord Sutch was not bitter or vindictive about electoral defeat, he prompted me to think that he himself was either bitter or vindictive about his electoral victory. It became clear from his closing remarks that he was upset because he had been vetoed from a television programme.
There are perfectly good ways of dealing with the television veto if it is felt that that is a problem, but not by preventing people from standing at elections. I was tempted to think that had the 500 Liberals who were on holiday at the time of the hon. Gentleman's by-election had the privilege of absent votes, he would not be here now.
However, I leave the hon. Gentleman to his hon. Friends and turn to the range of issues in the debate, some of them technical and not particularly controversial, but others which are much more controversial and which give rise to partisan considerations.
The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) talked of unanimity in the Select Committee. That was not difficult to achieve, because the Select Committee consisted of members of the Conservative party and the Labour party, who often arrive at unanimity. There would have been no unanimity had there been representatives of the Liberal party, the SDP or any of the other minority parties which have taken part in today's proceedings. That is not a general criticism of the Select Committee, but we must get away from the idea that a wide swathe of opinion is unanimous on these points.

Mr. Mellor: I have been waiting a long while to hear the hon. Gentleman, and I wanted to make sure that he would leave time to tell us whether the alliance had resolved the differences that are apparent in the views that

it has put to us. In his letter to us of 25 November 1983, the leader of the SDP called for a large deposit and for the 12·5 per cent. to be left as it is, whereas the hon. Gentleman's own letter called for something completely different.

Mr. Beith: I shall deal with that in my closing remarks, but I wish to start with the more technical points. However, if the hon. Gentleman is expecting unanimity, the last place he should look is behind him, where he will find radically different views on whether the deposit should exist or should be high or low.
No one has yet mentioned the electoral registration timetable. We do not welcome the suggestion that the electoral register might be published as late as 20 March, which is extremely close to the campaign period for the local elections. The difficulties that have led to that date being suggested must be overcome if the timetable after the register is published is not to be completely unreasonable for those taking part in elections.
The question of the free post was dealt with ambiguously in the White Paper. The Government have helpfully said that they will discuss the options. but the way in which the recommendations were worded, particularly the summary of recommendations, did not suggest that they were still seriously considering the use of an unaddressed service such as is provided by the Post Office. It is at least arguable that that might be cheaper than the use of the addressed system. To judge from the nods from the Under-Secretary, I presume that he intends that possibility to be part of the consultations.
This has a tangential relationship to the whole issue of deposits, because the Home Secretary argued in reply to me that if the post is made easier to use by being unaddressed, more use of it may be made. So far, so-called fringe candidates have not profited at public expense by using the free post. In general they have not made use of it at all. Even if they were to use an unaddressed post, they would have to find the deposit as well as the cost of the literature which they wanted to send out. If there are reasons to guard against people fighting elections for commercial considerations, there are other ways of dealing with it, and I shall come to them in a moment.
The right to vote for citizens resident overseas features in the Labour party's amendment. In practice we have long had citizens resident overseas voting in elections in this country by virtue of a residence which they maintain here. It does not seem reasonable that those who are unable to afford to maintain a residence here while working overseas should be denied that right to take part in elections.
There is an undercurrent of suggestion in the Labour party's amendment—when it talks about tax exiles and people working in lucrative jobs overseas—that there is something fundamentally unpatriotic about working abroad and still seeking to exercise some role in the affairs of the country of which a person is proud to be a citizen. That is an incorrect suggestion. Many of those working overseas do so in international institutions such as the European Community, the Council of Europe, the World Bank, UNESCO and the various United Nation agencies, and many are working there specifically because they have been seconded from British institutions. Others are working for commercial organisations abroad, serving British interests, while others are serving as missionaries


or as voluntary workers to help the societies to which they go. It is reasonable to make provision for them to exercise the right to vote here.
In the European elections, we watched citizens of many other countries going to town halls in this country to cast their votes. Many of them came from Socialist countries in other parts of Europe which thought it essential to provide their citizens with the right to vote, and those citizens exercised that right. Therefore, we cannot support the Labour party's amendment, because it seeks to deny a right which the Government are correct to want to extend.
I have some agreement with the Government over postal votes, because I think that it is right to widen the scope of them, particularly to those who are on holiday. We have all been through the experience of fighting general elections and European elections during holiday periods. The present system is biased against working people. There are many people on holiday who qualify for postal votes because the nature of their work makes it easy to apply. There are a wide variety of occupations in which it is possible to argue that in some way, during a period of absence, one may be discharging the functions of one's occupation, whether one is inspecting cattle in a distant market or in some other way carrying out one's occupation while actually on holiday. However, an ordinary working person in a wage-earning job in a factory who goes off on a coach tour in this country or abroad—often it is in this country—is denied any means of voting because it is clear that he is on holiday. Such people should not be denied the right to vote, and therefore the extension should be made.
There are arguments for making the reasonably wide provision that the Government have made, but we shall have to look at it again in a little more detail when we come to consider the Bill to see whether the proposed safeguards and definition are the right ones. In the broad principle I support the Government in what they are trying to do, but I am worried, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was, about the business of reregistering postal votes for those who have an occupational reason for a postal vote. That is an unreasonable demand. I have ample knowledge of the problems of long-distance wagon drivers, fishermen and others who, because of the nature of their work, never know whether they will be available to vote. It would be a disability for them if they were to have to renew their right to a postal vote on a regular basis. They should not have to do that.
It is a continuing absurdity to deny postal voting for parish, town and other local councils. I have seen the absurdity of that in practice. We are now talking about substantial communities. Local government reorganisation left many substantial towns and large communities with the town or parish council as an important unit of local government. Town and district council elections take place on the same day. I have watched a car arrive with the frail and handicapped residents of some old people's home being literally carried into the polling station by an enthusiastic candidate. They say to the candidate, "But, Mr. Smith, I have already voted for you by post," to which the candidate replies, "Oh no dear, that was in the district council election. You have to come in person to vote for me in the parish council election." These unfortunate people come to the same polling station for which they

have been permitted to be absent for the district council elections, in order to vote in person in the parish council elections. That is absurd, and the Government should put it right. There is all-party support for this, and there is support from outside the House, especially from local councils and their national associations.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I have considerable knowledge of parish councils, having served on one for about 17 years, and I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Does he agree that, in addition to the excellent reasons that he has given, there is another reason why postal votes should be extended to parish councils? Many parishes are small communities, and in those areas literally a handful of votes will often decide the issue. Is it not particularly unfortunate that in such instances people are deprived of the right to vote?

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that his comments will be taken to heart by the Minister, because this issue, among the many that had to be considered, has been left aside in the course of the discussions.
The recommendation about multiple registration, which is an important problem, has been rejected by the Government. The last Speaker's Conference, in 1973–74, recommended that the practice of being able to register a vote in several constituencies for parliamentary elections should be prohibited. In their evidence to the Select Committee, the Liberal, Labour and Conservative parties all said that the practice should be ended. The Select Committee was quite clear about this in its report. It discussed the possible objections and obstacles and said that as the Home Office was raising some of these obstacles, it would take some time to consider them. However, the Select Committee still came to the conclusion that the practice of being registered in several constituencies was indefensible.
This takes place against a background of the shift in case law over the years. There was a time when it was easier to challenge the registration of a holiday home; for example, because the concept of a principal residence was understood and accepted by returning officers and the courts. Over the years that has changed, and the idea that there is a principal residence does not now form part of the working law. It is possible for someone to establish a residential qualification in two, three, four or five places.
Often, in any given constituency, this problem involves a large number of holiday homes—houses which people keep to take holidays in themselves, or primarily to let to other people to take holidays in, and which they occasionally make use of themselves. These give rise to many social problems and arguments. However, what incenses the local communities concerned is that many people will, in the course of the election campaign, suddenly decide that they will cast their vote in their seaside home instead of in their other residence.
Other things arise from this as well. For example, if a by-election takes place, the people concerned have the right to vote in that by-election and in any other by-election in a constituency in which they have a registered home during the course of that Parliament, and even in more than one by-election taking place on the same day. By this, we admit into our system the right to vote several times for the same Parliament.
By this dual registration, we also increase the risk that people may vote twice. Unlike other problems, this does


not arise on a large scale, but it is a problem, and it is difficult to prevent it and to enforce the law. The problem will be made worse by making postal votes easier to get. Government sources have argued to me that people are unlikely to abuse the rights which they have acquired through multiple registration because they cannot be in two places at once and their holiday home is a long way from their residence. However, if they can apply easily for a postal vote, it is that much easier for them to cast their vote at will in whatever place they choose.
There are a number of different ways to resolve the problem, and all are open to easy legislative steps. We can make it an offence knowingly to apply to be registered in more than one place, and we can make it clear to the person filling up the form that, just as he has to establish that anyone over 18 on the form is a British or Commonwealth citizen, so he has to satisfy himself that someone is not seeking registration in some other place. We can make it clear that there is a basis for a challenge. We can go further, and reintroduce the concept of a principal residence. If that is the only way that the Government are prepared to do it, I should agree with that. However, it is not the best way. I am content to leave the choice to the elector as long as he has a choice for a year that he will register in a particular place, not a choice, that on election day, he will go and vote in Cornwall, Northumberland or Lancashire rather than in London, Birmingham or Manchester.
For the Government to duck out of adopting that recommendation suggests some partisanship in their consideration of this measure. It must have been put to them from some quarter—presumably not from Central Office, because it is in favour of the changes that I am advocating—that the proposed change might harm the Conservative party because it could no longer use holiday votes in this way. I find that explanation more convincing than the Home Office directory of obstacles. The Home Office keeps a cupboard of obstacles. The Minister will know from his experiences of trying to get changes made there that out of this cupboard are brought obstacles to any proposal that could ever be conceived, however meritorious. He should throw the obstacles back in the cupboard and tell the people who are paid to remove obstacles that they must get on and do it, and make the change that I advocate.
What legitimate purpose is intended to be served by a massive increase in the parliamentary election deposit? The Select Committee refers to the possibility of abuse of the privileges of being a candidate by fringe candidates and to the desirability of deterring frivolous, disruptive, racialist or other anti-social candidates. Those are the kind of arguments advanced. The arguments of abuse it quickly dismisses by saying:
the Home Office told us that there was little evidence of serious abuse of electoral privileges by candidates who do not come from the main political parties".
I do not know whether that is a hint that those who come from major political parties abuse privileges, but that we will leave aside.
Why should people not have the right to put potentially unpopular views to the electorate? That is what elections are about. I go so far as to depart from the views of some hon. Members who have intervened in the debate and say that even some of the views that I find most repugnant I am delighted to see put to the test before the electorate and decisively rejected, as they have been repeatedly. When

the National Front has sought to advance its views be fore the electorate, those views have been decisively rejected, and will continue to be decisively rejected. While I am prepared to support measures to prevent them from making racialist utterances and such like, I welcome the test before the electorate of unpopular views, regardless of whether it is theirs or others with which I disagree. There is something insufferably pompous about saying that fringe candidates in some way disrupt elections, still less confuse the electorate, which has shown itself capable of distinguishing between whom it wants and whom it does not want.
Even if it were desirable to limit in some way the right of various fringe categories of people to stand, that would not be achieved by the proposal to raise the deposit to £1,000. It will not stop the commercial candidate. If a candidate is motivated by commercial considerations and he thinks that it is worth 1,000 to fight an election, he will put down £1,000 to do it, and there is no deterrent to the commercial candidate. However, serious problems are presented by increasing the deposit on that scale. This will hit a number of small parties like the Ecology party, Mebyon Kernon in Cornwall and Plaid Cymru. I refer to what the Ecology party says about this:
The recommendation, by the Home Affairs Select Committee … that the deposit for Parliamentary Elections should be raised from the present £150 to £1,000 poses a serious and direct threat to democracy. It represents a step back to the day when politics was the prerogative of the rich—there is no guarantee that ideas and opinions backed by money are necessarily better than those without vested financial interests behind them.
The Government have pointed out several times that they have lowered the threshold, which I think is right. It will be a great help to the Labour party which lost 119 deposits in the last general election. The lowering of the threshold would assist the Labour party materially, as has been pointed out. However, it would not help some of the smaller parties that I have described. It tends to smack of an arrangement which may suit parties in the House, including my party, because the mere lowering of the threshold would have saved even the handful of deposits that the Alliance parties lost in the last general election. However, it can be seriously harmful to parties which are not represented in the House, and which have every right to stand.
The effect of this on major parties and parties intending to stand nationally across the country is a different one. It is the effect produced by having to put down over £500,000 to fight the election. Before one has spent any of the money, or borrowed any money from this friendly bank manager who will lend the £500,000, one has to spend in the election campaign. The Conservative party knows better than most that election campaigns are expensive. It spends vast amounts of money not only in the constituencies but centrally. It must be well aware that parties which are not so well endowed as it is have to look hard for finance at the time of fighting an election campaign. One may well be going to the bank manager not only for deposit money, but for some part of the total costs of the campaign as well. It is almost as if parties like the alliance parties, having engaged in some nefarious campaign of secondary picketing, are now being told that their entire assets will be sequestrated for the period of the election campaign as a penalty for what they have done. Out of fairly limited resources, it is proposed that a large amount be set aside for this period. If the Government are


tempted to resist this argument and say that friendly bank managers and banker's drafts will solve it all, I remind them what they say in the White Paper with regard to a deposit of £2,000:
It would mean that each of the political parties for which candidates stood in all or most of the 633 constituencies … would have to set aside over £1 million at the start of the campaign. Even if the parties could assume that most of this amount would be recovered after the election, it might cause severe cash flow problems when funds are needed for the campaign itself. Furthermore, an increase to £2,000 would put a major barrier in the way of independent candidates and those from the smaller political parties.
Thus, the Government accept all the arguments. They say that they apply to £2,000, but not to £1,000. That must be because the Government live in a different financial league from lesser mortals like the rest of us.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman puts the charge as if he speaks on behalf of a united alliance. However, I have before me the form returned to us by the leader of the Social Democratic party, agreeing to a significant increase of over 300 per cent. in the deposit, and asking that the threshold remain at 12·5 per cent. Has the hon. Gentleman resolved these differences with his alliance partners before he makes these charges against the Government?

Mr. Beith: The Social Democratic party put forward a case for a deposit of £500. I do not agree that it needs to be that, but now that it has been halved from £2,000 to £1,000 under the Government's proposals, we are making some progress. I have put forward the view that there are better options to the deposit. The Government will already have discovered in the course of the debate that, whatever else there is, there is no widespread support in the parties for a deposit of £1,000.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister's intervention appears to be designed to perpetuate the impression that the Government are constantly engaged in, with the cosy acquiescence and assistance of the Labour Front Bench, that the Alliance is one party and not two, and that on all matters we are identical in our view, which the Minister and I know is not the case. It might suit the convenience of these old parties to treat us as if we were one, but it is simply not the case.

Mr. Beith: What a wise observation my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) makes! If the only thing that he and I ever disagree about is that the deposit should be £150 or £500, the path to alliance unity is even smoother than I thought.

Mr. Mellor: rose—

Mr. Beith: No, I shall not give way until I have finished this point. The Minister is looking for friends in the Chamber, and he has found there are not many behind him. He is looking for friends for a £1,000 deposit. He will not find any friends for a £1,000 deposit except the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and possibly the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) who was so concerned about the Fascist movement.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman must address his mind to the point. I was grateful to his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland for advising us that the alliance is not really an alliance at all. We obviously shall not forget that fact.
To come to the point, the basic charge that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has levelled against the Government is that the big Conservative party, well-financed, is putting forward a proposal that suits its narrow interest, forgetting that a Select Committee, consisting of members of the principal Opposition party, unanimously agreed to this and forgetting that a small party, whose members are its allies, the Social Democratic party, put forward proposals that were more draconian than the Government's proposals. The Social Democratic party asked for the threshold to remain at 12·5 per cent. rather than at 5 per cent. Surely there is an inconsistency in the charge that the hon. Gentleman makes. He can hardly claim that it is the big parties playing up when his own allies agree with us far more than they agree with him.

Mr. Beith: My allies agree that the Government's proposed deposit of £1,000 is far too high. The amount of disagreement on this is at least on the same scale. If anything, it is less than the amount of disagreement already revealed on the Conservative Back Benches on which the Minister finds that he is short of support for his proposal to make this £1,000 increase.
I suggest to the Minister that the ability to raise a deposit on this scale is no test of the amount of support that exists in a constituency for a candidate. If the Minister thinks that is important, there are other tests for which to look. I do not rate this as being as important as he does. I am not as interested in deterring people from standing in elections as he is. If the Minister is determined to do this, in that spirit, I suggest that he looks at signatures as an alternative. It is interesting that the objection to signatures were largely disposed of by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) who spoke in some detail on the point. I did not agree with him about deposits, but he disposed of many of the objections to having a larger number of signatures. They are not serious objections, and, rather like those on multiple registration, are produced from a partisan point of view. The Minister could perfectly well leave things alone. The Home Office has been content to leave the dog licence alone for 100 years. Indeed, it has been even slower over that than it is alleged to have been on this issue. That licensing issue has been in the Home Office's hands for a very long time.
The Minister implied that there might be some disagreement between parties on this issue. Incidentally, the Labour party has changed its position. This is not a partisan point, because I welcome the fact that Labour Members saw the light between the time of their original submission of evidence and the accretion to office of the right hon. Member for Gorton. But where in all this does the pledge of Lord Whitelaw stand? When Home Secretary, he made it quite clear that, as far as he was concerned, deposits were a matter on which there needed to be wide agreement among the parties.
Lord Whitelaw did so in language characteristic of him. He said:
Many people think that the deposit is unsatisfactory at its present level but that changes should, as they have in the past, be made on the basis of all-party agreement in the House. I think that that is important."—[Official Report, 31 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 458.]
I can hear Lord Whitelaw's ringing tones now. He made it quite clear that there should be no great moves until there was agreement between the parties. That agreement has


not been secured. I think that that is why the Home Secretary, in opening the debate, implied that he was prepared to look at the issue again.
I hope that the Home Secretary was serious about that, and that what the Minister has heard during this debate will lead him to move away from the proposal for a £1,000 deposit. If he attempts to proceed with legislation that is seen widely—not only by hon. Members but by many outside commentators—as a highly partisan proposal, which is particularly damaging to smaller parties and individuals who are not represented in the House, he will be in for a very tough time on the legislation, and will be making a very unwise move.
Of course, as far as possible we proceed with the organisation and arrangement of electoral law in accordance with the strictest traditions of British fairness and scrupulousness, yet we do nothing to ensure that there is ultimately any relationship between the votes cast and the seats won. In his concluding remarks, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) alluded to that, and argued that during the last European elections the difference between what took place in Northern Ireland and Great Britain could not reasonably be sustained. Two different electoral systems were in operation for the same election to the same body. I agreed with him, although of course we would draw different conclusions. I think that he wants the system that Great Britain used and I want the system that the British Goverment used in Northern Ireland. However, it is preposterous that we should preserve the myth that great scrupulousness and fairness surround a system when it is fundamentally unfair, particularly to voters. I wonder why we do it.
The other day, I read a few words written by Lord Wilson of Rievaulx in a foreword to a book by a former Labour Member of Parliament who advocated electoral reform. He said:
If I cannot have a Labour Government, I would prefer, almost choking as I write it"—
I am touched to think that the noble Lord could write words that almost choked him—
a Conservative or other Government".
I think that the noble Lord put his finger on it, because those who want to retain the system as it is have as their fundamental belief that it somehow produces Governments, and that as long as a Government are produced by it, it does not really matter which.
There is a much simpler, less expensive and briefer method of achieving precisely the same result. It does not require these debates or this apparatus. All that is needed is to toss a coin and so make a random choice as to the Government who are to be in office. That is about as close to accuracy as our electoral system is. That is why it is so indefensible. The parties that dominate this House can carry on doing things in the way that they choose for a little while longer, and they can carve up the time in the House and election arrangements, and preserve the electoral system that suits them, but they will not be able to keep it up for ever because that system will change, and we shall change it.

Mr. Rob Hayward: I should like to raise two points, one of which has been dealt with by several hon. Members, and one of which has not been touched on by any hon. Member or by the White Paper. First, I should like to clarify the question of postal votes, to which the

right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others have referred.
Unlike the right hon. Member for Down, South, I believe that the system should be somewhat more flexible than it is at present. The right hon. Gentleman made a very coherent argument, but I cannot agree with him on that point. Far too many members of the public realise too late that they are entitled to claim a postal vote and so find themselves debarred. The Government propose to extend the entitlement to postal votes, but the time limit for applications, followed by the time limit for distribution, is too far away from polling day. People should be entitled to make their applications nearer to polling day and so be able to cast their votes. Not all people are aware that they have until the tenth day before polling day to apply for a postal vote, and it is only the reminder—the imminence of a general election—that makes them realise that they are likely to be away on the day. How often have we all, as candidates on the doorstep, been told, "I have only just realised that that is the day that I shall be away."? Such people should not be debarred from their natural right to cast a vote.
My second point relates to the legislation covering constituency reviews, as originally set out in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1958, which has been encompassed by the Representation of the People Act 1979. It says:
a Boundary Commission's report, … shall be submitted not less than ten or more than fifteen years from the date of the submission of the Commission's last report under that subsection".
I have looked up the speech that the then Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal, Mr. R. A. Butler, made when introducing that legislation. He said that the minimum interval of 10 years should be short enough to prevent major discrepancies from remaining too long uncorrected.
I am sure that that was the then Secretary of State's expectation when the legislation was introduced in 1958, but unfortunately, because of a curious series of events that Mr. Butler doubtless never expected, major discrepancies will occur between the latest boundary review and the next one. As hon. Members will be aware, the date used for the review of electorates was 1976. The actual review was not submitted until 1983. Therefore, when it was submitted to the House, the electorates involved were already seven years out of date.
Given that the report was submitted in 1983 and that a general election also took place in 1983, and presuming that we shall have a full Parliament following each of the next general elections—there is a maximum of five years for each Parliament, although Governments tend to go for four and a half years—the next general election to be fought on new boundaries will probably take place in 1997. In other words, there will have been a period of 21 years between the original electorates being used for the Boundary Commission's report which was submitted in 1983, and a new series of boundaries being used.
When Mr. Butler introduced that legislation in 1958, it was clearly never intended that 21 years should elapse between the start of one review and the implementation of the next. That is contrary to all the principles that both he and the then Opposition spokesman, Mr. Gilbert Mitchison, referred to at the time. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to look carefully at the time scale involved


as originally set out in the 1958 Act and confirmed in later legislation. Mr. Butler said that he wanted to avoid major discrepancies. Given current population trends, by 1997 two constituencies in England—Milton Keynes and Hampshire, East—will have electorates of more than 120,000. Another 23 constituencies will have electorates of 100,000, given current population trends. There will also be a large number of constituencies whose electorates will be well below 50,000 and a number which will be well below 40,000.
Between 1976 and 1983, the dates of the initial review and the implementation of the Boundaries Commission report, three parliamentary constituencies had electorates which dropped by over 10,000. If those three constituencies continue to decline at that rate, their electorates will be well below 40,000 and probably at least two of them will be below 30,000. In other words, at that stage we will be talking about a discrepancy of 90,000 between the electorates of the two largest constituencies and those of the two smallest constituencies in England.

Mr. Bermingham: I accept all that the hon. Gentleman has said so far about reviews. Will he accept two things in regard to the last review? First, will he accept that there was a problem over a certain district council in London which fought the local government Boundary Commission and that delayed the matter for two to three years? Will he also accept that modem computer techniques developed by Professor Johnson of Sheffield University, of which I think the hon. Gentleman is well aware, make it possible to calculate and redistribute the whole of Great Britain within about six months? Therefore, if we take the earlier 10-year date, the problem of the 1990s may not arise.

Mr. Hayward: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. It is precisely because of technicalities which were not foreseen when the Bill was introduced in 1958 that I am arguing that the period should be shorter. There are other technicalities which could further delay redistribution.
Many countries review their constituency boundaries in less than a year. Therefore, I must agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, I made the point about the chance of having a review submitted in 1983, followed immediately by a general election. Presumably there are two full parliaments which will last approximately nine to nine and a half years, there will be a third general election which will push the next general election to 1997 and therefore there will be that delay of 21 years unless the regulations are specifically changed.
Given the points that I have made about the disparity that will arise before 1997 in relation to the electorates—I referred to English constituencies, although equivalent discrepancies will arise in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with the construction of new towns such as Cwmbran and Cumbernauld—the period originally intended should be shortened so that we do not confront those massive discrepancies that were never intended by Mr. Butler when he introduced the original legislation.

Mr. Clive Soley: First, I add my voice to those who have expressed concern about the suggestion that the fee should be increased. My hon. Friend the

Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) put the case well in an intervention about the Ecology party a short while ago. I want to add my voice to what he said. We should be concerned if we are to start restricting democracy to those who can pay for it.
However, that is not the purpose of my intervention today. I want to speak on a different and specific matter. It concerns an election court that sat in Hammersmith and dealt with an alleged corruption two years ago. I make it clear straight away that my purpose today is not to rake over the ashes of the rights and wrongs of that, but simply to point out, as I did at the time, that it had considerable national implications, and they have not yet been satisfied. I fear I shall have to go over the details of the case for the Minister, and, should he need papers at a later stage, I shall be happy to send them to him.
The incident took place in Hammersmith during the 1982 local elections. The seat concerned was marginal, closely fought by Labour and Conservative candidates. It ended with two of the three council seats going to the Labour candidates and one to the Conservative candidate. The Conservative—the one against whom the allegations were made—had a majority of 74.
On 1 May 1982, about a week before the election, a letter was sent out by the Conservative candidate—it was written on town hall paper because he was already a councillor from the previous period—with the crest and the councillor's name on it. Next to it was superimposed a photograph of a football game. That letter starts, "Dear Parent". It then refers to the match between Queen's Park Rangers and Bolton on 1 May 1982. It went on:
I am pleased, through the generosity of the Directors of the Club, to invite your Son, or Daughter, to the League match which is to take place at the Rangers Stadium this Saturday, 1st May, THIS LETTER IS A TICKET OF ADMISSION, and should be shown if required when attending the match.
Pupils from many Hammersmith schools have been invited and it is anticipated that more than 1,000 young people will attend. Teachers and Parents will also be present and will act as stewards. If, however, you wish to accompany your child, you may do so, and this letter will also ADMIT YOU WITHOUT PAYMENT.
The letter goes on to describe how to attend the match.
At the bottom of that letter is a photograph of that councillor holding a football above his head. As I said, he won the election by 74 votes. As a result, the control of the council was decided. Hammersmith is a hung council. Had he lost that seat, Labour would have been the predominant party. Therefore, it can be seen that that was one of those classic situations that made a difference to political control.
The Hammersmith, North constituency Labour party took detailed legal advice. I put it on record now that I received a lot of advice from Sam Silkin, whom many will respect as having once been a distinguished Member of the House with considerable legal knowledge. We also took advice from other suitably qualified people. We were advised that there was a strong case, but that we could not be sure of winning it. That was understood. The case of Josephine Ann Wicks and William C. Smith then took place on 6 May 1982.
Let me quote briefly from the judgment in that case. It says:
In my judgment the Respondent must have had in his mind"—
the respondent is the Conservative candidate in this case—
the realisation that his actions in regard to the 1st May match would increase or tend to increase his popularity, and that that


might assist him in relation to voting. But he had previously done the same thing without any complaint or criticism until after the election".
That was a reference to a case in which the respondent had offered entertainment of this type when an election was not taking place.
The judgment continues:
On the vital point whether the increasing of popularity was the governing principle here in the Respondent's mind or whether whilst that was or may have been in his mind the governing principle"—
I emphasise those words—
was a mere act of kindness, I find without hesitation that the governing principle was an act of kindness, unwise in the circumstances but certainly not corrupt. In my judgment the Respondent is not guilty of any offence under section 100, corruptly treating.
I am not seeking to reopen the case in detail, but it clearly has severe repercussions elsewhere. The local Labour party considered an appeal, and it was advised that it might win, but that the expenses of losing would be considerable. Already the expenses of the court case have reached, I believe I am right in saying, five figures.
I am asking that the law should be brought into line with at least the position of Members of Parliament. Before I do that, may I pick up some of the points that are relevant from the findings. First, as I understand it, the relevant findings of fact are
the respondent must have had in his mind the realisation that his actions in regard to the 1st May match would increase or tend to increase his popularity, and that that might assist him in relation to voting.
The second finding of fact was:
the governing principle was an act of kindness, unwise in the circumstances but certainly not corrupt.
In those circumstances, the judge, having correctly stated the vital question, which was one of intention, appears to have decided the matter not on intention but on the governing principle being the predominant motive. Bearing in mind that his predominant motive was to do an act of kindness, but also that he knew that that act of kindness would tend to increase his popularity and might bring him votes, perhaps the question that should have been asked in the case was whether it was established that he intended that the act of kindness should tend to increase his popularity and bring him votes.
The problems of dealing with a situation such as this are difficult. One could say that it is simply a matter of appealing and hoping to win the appeal, but it is not as easy as that. The cost involved is severe, and there is no way in which the local Labour party could have afforded the cost if it had fought the case and lost the appeal. It would have been an impossible burden for a local constituency party to bear.
One of two things needs to be done. First, the law could be brought into line with or made similar to that which applies to Members of this House. For example, if an election had been called and during the ast few years I had occasionally treated or entertained people, and then sought to do so using House of Commons notepaper during the election period, I think that I would have been in serious trouble with the electoral court and with this House—and rightly so. I do not think that anyone here would dispute that. If that is the case, surely a similar principle should be applied to local authorities.
There seems to be a double standard, and I suspect that it is because councillors continue to occupy their positions, although hon. Members of this place cease to occupy their positions, when an election is declared.
The other way of dealing with the matter would be to use a form of wording such as that which I sought to put into a Bill two years ago. I proposed a form of wording which would have added a paragraph (c) to clause 114(2) of the Representation of the People Bill. The provision was along the lines that any practice of treating before an election shall not be continued after an election has been declared and before that result has been announced if that treating applies to people who are in a position to vote for the candidate.
I recognise the drafting difficulties. There is the problem that a person may, for example, have been making regular payments to a charity. If we restrict the provision to payments to people who can actually vote for the candidate, and if we restrict it to the election period, that seems to be a valid way of dealing with the problem. Therefore, there are two possibilities. The first is an addition to the law of the type that I have just described. The second is for the Government to endeavour to introduce legislation, or whatever is necessary, to bring the provisions for councillors into line with those applying to Members of Parliament.
Judges who sit in electoral courts should be advised—it may be a matter for the Lord Chancellor, but the Home Office should have a view on it—not to participate in electoral court cases if they are closely related to a person who has recently been a candidate. I say that because one of the sad aspects of the case NA as that, soon after the judgment had been announced, a number of people became aware that the judge was the father of the Conservative candidate who had stood against me in 1979, and that the lady who had lost in the council election had, in fact been my agent. I make it abundantly clear that I am not suggesting that the judge was swayed by that factor. Indeed, I also recognise that a rather more distant relative of the judge was Sir Stafford Cripps, who was a very distiguished member of the Labour party. Nevertheless, it seems extremely unwise for a judge to decide a case such as this when he has had such a close relative involved in a recent election in the area. No matter what I say to people, many will believe that the judge's decision was swayed by that contact. That may be an unfair and unreasonable view, but most of us recognise that the law has to be seen to be as perfect as possible.
Therefore, I am asking that advice be given to judges not to accept cases of this type if someone directly related to them, as opposed to a more distant relative, has stood as a candidate in an election in the area. It is an extremely important matter. I have already said that I raised it in a Bill two years ago. I attempted to put it to the Select Committee, but, for reasons that I am unclear about—perhaps because it was regarded as a matter for appeal—the Committee chose not to look into it. I respect that decision. Nevertheless, I feel that the judgment has very real national implications that should be examined. Therefore, I invite the Minister to respond to me at some stage in that respect.

Mr. William Powell: I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the interesting road on which he has just taken us. As one who is fascinated by this area of the law of elections, I should be only too happy to discuss the matter with him elsewhere on other occasions, but for the purpose of the debate I want to concentrate on some of the things that have been said.
I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said about the redistribution of boundaries. I know that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) largely agreed with what my hon. Friend said, and I am certain that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary knows me well enough to know that I shall pursue him on the matter until such time as we have a contemporary statute which reflects the reality of how these things should be done today, rather than that which was possible several decades ago.
In a curious way the debate, as it has become enlarged, has, as it should, crossed the party boundaries. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean) analysed the deficiences and showed how out of date our current election law is. I very much agree with what they said. No matter how beguiling the comments of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in his interesting contribution, I found his view of the principles which should govern elections somewhat nostaligic. Although personal privacy and simultaneity have an important role in the conduct of elections, they are by no means the only two principles which should govern such matters, and I do not regard them as the main ones which should govern the conduct of elections. I feel that our election law should instead be based upon two central principles.
First, we should encourage the maximum number of qualified people to be registered to vote. Not many hon. Members have taken up the comment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that the accuracy of the rolls is the most important point of all. I shall return to that in due course, because it seems to me that our law is now so out of date that we do not encourage the maximum possible number of qualified people to be registered to vote.
Secondly, having got the maximum number of qualified people on the register, we should do everything we can to encourage them to vote, rather than discouraging them. My central criticism of the law as it stands is that several substantial barriers are placed in the way of our electors when they seek to exercise their franchise. Those barriers have no place in modern society and can easily be eliminated. I am most impressed by the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) have been prepared to grasp the issue and to bring our law up to date. For that, they deserve the heartfelt thanks of every hon. Member.
Of course, some of the judgments that those hon. Members have sought to argue before the House have not stood up. Much attention has been concentrated on the deposit. Having listened to the argument and having made two interventions, I must say that the arguments in favour of a £1,000 deposit are as persuasive as the arguments in favour of no deposit. Both points are entirely arbitrary. A

consideration of principle means that we should place as few restrictions as we can on the right to stand as a candidate. We should place few restrictions also on the right to vote as an elector. The arguments in favour of no deposit are compelling.
I do not want my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to think that just because few hon. Members have attended the debate all the argument on his side lies with the absentees. Those who are most interested in and, perhaps, most knowledgeable about this matter attended the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will in no sense think that the quality of their contributions is diminished by the fact that not many hon. Members are present.
It is clear that candidacies have been abused. We have heard of the danger of commercial candidacies. It may be that a few people stand for election simply to have a good time and make a mockery of the system. There are two elementary ways of dealing with that problem. One way exists already—the post master has the right to decide not to accept material which he does not regard as legitimate election material. I believe that the returning officer should have a similar right to disqualify people who put themselves forward as candidates of parties which manifestly are not parties. If the person disqualified by the returning officer does not approve the decision, he would, of course, have the right to go to the courts. That discretion should lie with the returning officer.
Although he was helpful in a number of ways, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made one of the most reactionary speeches that I have heard in my life. It seemed that he was exactly the sort of person who was trying to impose barriers on voting rather than eliminate them. I disagreed with virtually every word that he had to say about people who are temporarily living abroad. I believe that the Government are right to seek to extend the franchise to them. The right hon. Gentleman referred also to those who have holiday votes.
Many hundreds of thousands of people are away from this country for short periods on contract whether in the European Community, the Gulf or the middle east and are fortuitiously absent for the period of a general election and during the preparations of the register. They are denied the right to vote, even though they will return to this country well before the end of the Parliament elected following that general election. Those people should have the right to determine the Government. They may have substantial ties with this country in the form of families still living here, and it is proper for us to extend the right to vote to them.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, the accuracy of the register is the most important point. Our registers are shockingly inaccurate when they are drawn up. We should be ashamed of that. We should do everything we can through the legislation that must follow from this debate, which I hope will be introduced in the next Session, to draw up sensible rules to ensure that the register is as accurate as possible.
I seek to lay down the principle that the electoral registration officer should have a legal duty at all times to keep an accurate register. If it transpires that there is an inaccurate factor on the register, his duty should be immediately to correct the register, ensuring that the


person is then entitled to vote. One of the farces of the current law is that certain categories of people can get the register altered, and still be denied the right to vote.
In due course, we shall have the opportunity of discussing postal votes. I shall draw on one aspect of my experience. In 1979, I was resident in a constituency which had more than 93,000 voters. I was active on behalf of my party in the election campaign, although I was not a candidate. We were proud, of the fact that we had managed to secure about 2,000 postal votes. A close analysis showed that 10,000 people were entitled at law to vote by post if they claimed their postal vote which meant that about 8,000 people had not claimed their postal vote. By far and away the largest category of that 8,000 comprised people who had moved house—not long distance lorry drivers, fishermen and some of the other important categories. Those people had moved house not from one village to another or from one part of town to another but had moved from Cambridgeshire to Cornwall, Cumbria or wherever.
Most of those people, who were not especially politically active and did not think about the importance of securing their postal vote in good time, discovered that to vote at all they would have to drive 50 or 100 miles. That was far too great a distance to contemplate. The biggest single reason why voting turnouts in Britain are lower than in other countries is not that our people do not want to vote but that we place hurdles in front of them. We stop them from voting, and that must change. This statute must ensure that that does not happen in future.
I should like to see the creation of a roll-on register, so that people moving from one constituency to another are entitled to notify the electoral registration officer of their move. That officer would have the responsibility of eliminating the name of the person from the register in his former constituency and inserting it on the new register, thereby enabling the person to vote where he lives rather than where he lived 18 months ago. That step would go a long way towards encouraging the higher turnout of people.
Obviously, at the end of the evening when many matters have been canvassed, I should like to say a great deal more. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on their initiatives. I want them to understand also that some of the arguments advanced by the Opposition are not ridiculous. I support the idea that a person can be registered in only one place. It is wrong to encourage people to be registered in different constituencies.
The points made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) were valid, although his speech went off the boil after the interruption by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in one of the most effective torpedoes that I have heard during my short time as a Member. My hon. Friend will have our good wishes and our help. If he is prepared to seek wide support for what he wants to do, this new legislation will command the support of not only the House but the country and will survive.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) made a thoughtful speech, much of which commanded support across party lines. I wish to pick up just a couple of points.
On the accuracy of electoral registers, I remember the historic by-election of 1972 in Merthyr Tydfil, where was then living, when one person found that he was registered seven times on the same register. He only voted once, of course, but inaccuracies of that kind occur all the time. Later that year I stood for election to the local authority in the same area and had about 1,000 votes to win in a four-cornered fight. When the electoral register, which consisted of about 8,000 names, was next published, I discovered that it had fallen by about 800, most of whom turned out to be recognised supporters of my party.
In other words, the system is open to abuse. The compilation of the register should be dealt with in a far more professional way and there should be a statutory responsibility to keep the register accurate and up to date. Names and addresses should not be picked up and confirmed on an ad hoc basis. There should be a systematic, professional way of going about the task.
The subject of electoral deposits is close to my heart and I should perhaps declare an interest because my party, regrettably, loses far too many of them and the thought of the deposit rising to £1,000 fills us with awe. There should not be a financial barrier to people wishing to express their views or to change society through the ballot box and the constitutional mechanism. Any disincentive which drives people away from the constitutional process is greatly to be regretted. Reference has been made to the Ecology party. There are also various parties on the far Left. It is far better that those people should express their feelings through the ballot box and the constitutional process than by other methods.
There have been disparaging references to "clown candidates" but a large deposit means that rich clowns can stand and poor clowns cannot. Anyone with a contribution to make should have the right to do so. We regret very much the proposed increase to 1,000 and I hope that there will be an assurance that it will not rise any further. Even that figure may prevent our fighting all the seats in Wales in the next election. That will be the effect of the proposed changes on the democratic process. Nevertheless, I welcome the Government's move to reduce the required proportion to 5 per cent., which is far more acceptable.
Reference has also been made to second homes, which is a hot issue—one might almost say a burning issue—in my part of Wales. There are 15,000 holiday homes in the county of Gwynedd, which is almost 20 per cent. of the houses in the county, so a real problem arises. I realise that some people with holiday homes claimed the right to register in that area in the past because if they were in their holiday homes at the time of an election they would otherwise be disfranchised. Paragraph 67 of the Select Committee report, however, states:
if our recommendation for the extension of absent voting at least to those on holiday in the UK were to be implemented, those who own holiday cottages could be accommodated by this means and the need to be registered in two separate places would no longer arise.
The Government have made no coherent and valid argument against that. They say that there would be difficulties in administering it, but there are even greater difficulties in trying to check whether people are voting twice. A comprehensive register on the basis of one registration per elector would be far easier to operate than trying to discover abuses of the present system.
If there are to be postal votes virtually on demand—for holidays and associated purposes, there will be a real


temptation for people who are registered twice to vote twice. I hope that registration officers will be strongly advised not to include occupants of second homes unless there is considerable permanence of occupation—perhaps a residential qualification of 40 weeks per year with occupation for at least part of each week. It would be greatly preferable, however, to do away with dual registration altogether. If the Minister insists on keeping the right to register in two places, at the very least anyone registering in two places should have to declare on the registration form the fact that he is also registered at another address so that there is some possibility of following up such cases and ensuring that the right is not being abused. That is the minimum that we should ask for if the proposed change goes through.
On overseas voting, I understand why people away from Britain want a say in elections, although if they are away for seven years or so, one may question whether they should have full rights when they are not part of the community here. People who have been living away from Wales for several years, feel the same way. They cannot vote for my party if they are living in London, but no provision has been made for them. [Interruption.] If the Minister is suggesting that all they need is a second home in Wales, that argument is not acceptable.

Mr. Mellor: I was saying that there was a Welsh nationalist candidate in my constituency, so if the people concerned lived in Putney they would be all right.

Mr. Wigley: I am sure that that candidate was not officially endorsed by my party and I certainly doubt whether the Minister voted for him.
Problems clearly arise from the extension of postal voting. Here I very much agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). In a county election in my area more than 20 per cent. of one ward was on a postal vote. One knows what can happen in such circumstances. Party workers know when the voting papers are posted. They can keep an eye on the postman delivering them and send carloads of supporters to follow him around. Then, as soon as the paper has been dropped into the poor old widow's letterbox, one of the supporters can knock on the door and say, "I see that your postal vote has come, Mrs. Jones. Postal votes are very complicated and you will need a witness. Perhaps I can help you." In that way, pressure can be put on people using postal votes.
That is reality. I know that it happens and the Government should be very much aware of it when considering greatly increasing the number of postal votes. I do not oppose giving the right to vote to people on holiday because they should not be disfranchised, but the safeguards against abuse must be developed. I also have reason to believe that in the recent European election more than 10 per cent. of the postal votes returned in my constituency were not counted, as they were in error because the system is so complicated. If all those putting the declaration and the ballot paper in the same envelope were also cut out, an enormous proportion of postal votes would be invalid. Therefore, I have doubts about the proposed extension of postal voting unless other changes go hand in hand with it to minimise abuse.
We also need tighter regulations to ensure that polling stations are accessible. Disabled people often have considerable difficulty. Although they have the right to a

postal vote, many of them like to go and vote personally. If the polling station is on the third floor or down a flight of steps, unnecessary barriers are placed in the way of disabled people.
The point that was made earlier about electoral registers being available to candidates in a computer-readable form on the same free basis is something to which the Government should address their minds. It will be needed in the future.
I understand the point about keeping open polling stations from 7 o'clock in the morning until 9 o'clock at night. It is important that all the electorate understand how much time is available to them for voting. That is a practical consideration.
In conclusion, I support the comments of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). Until and unless we have proper control of the abuse of financial resources that are available for the mass media for the centralised projection of election campaigns, to keep that control on a constituency basis is no more than a farce. At the moment it is possible to have a major influence on the outcome of major elections in spite of the lack of centralised control. The Government and Select Committees should consider how we can get proper control if we are to have meaningful democracy.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The hour is late, so I shall be brief. The essence of the question is whether or not a person living in a democratic society has a right to vote. If he has a right to vote, he has a right to stand up to be voted for. The two concepts are so inextricably linked in a democracy that anything that seeks to interfere with that right to stand or to vote ought to be opposed in any country that calls itself a democracy.
Examining the proposals in the White Paper, I ask the Minister to accept that I was one of those who first came to the argument in regard to the foreign residents, with which I shall deal in a moment, believing that we should look again at our tradition of a deposit. But I have listened to the arguments here tonight and I hope that the Minister will take up many of the points made by the smaller parties.
I object to anyone being called a clown candidate. That description is a disgrace. I do not mind what arguments he puts up: the electorate will tell him whether they think he is a clown candidate. If one stands for the "Must have roast beef on Sunday" party and gets no votes, one will know exactly what the electorate think.
One has a right in a democracy to stand for election. There is no need to obtain mystical permission from some party body. One has a right to stand as an individual. If we begin to attack that right to stand, then we begin to attack our own democracy. Similarly, on the right to vote, I ask the Minister to consider the question of the register. The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) was quite right. Much needs to be done, so that it can be updated, perhaps weekly or monthly. Once it is updated, one can vote again. In our technological society, there is no reason why that should not happen.
The Americans began their independence at Boston with the lovely cry, "No taxation without representation." When examining the question of overseas residents, perhaps we should turn that quotation the other way around. If taxation is paid, there is a right to representation and to vote. I take on board the point about the person who


will be abroad for a short while. I began by holding a different view, but I have listened to the arguments and I now believe that if a person will be away for a year or two, he should retain his voting status in this country, provided that he is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for taxation purposes. That is the key to the whole matter, and I ask the Minister to give some thought to that point.
If a person is paying tax in the United Kingdom, he should have a right to vote in the United Kingdom. The minute one starts to develop the argument down that philosophical line, it is right that one should vote if one is on holiday. A Conservative Member said earlier that he had not heard unequivocally from the Labour Benches that we believe that a holidaymaker should have a right to vote. Well, I say it unequivocally. If one pays tax here, and is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, one has a right to vote. We as a House have a duty to enshrine in statute law measures which assist the electorate to vote. It is not for us to tell them why or what to do. It is for us to make sure that they can exercise their democratic rights because they, in exercising their democratic rights say who has a right to speak in the House. The day when we seek to make that difficult is the day when we start to attack democracy.
I hope that the Government will take on board when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House many of the points made, but will start from the premise that the citizen who is ordinarily resident here and pays taxes here has the right to vote here and that every step should be taken to assist him.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: This has been an important debate on a major subject. I think that most hon. Members who have listened to and participated in it will agree that we have dealt with the matter seriously. The issues that were raised are the ones that one would expect, as well as many others such as electoral abuse mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), as well as the minutiae of the Representation of the People Acts.
The Opposition want to improve our democracy and ensure that the maximum number of those who are eligible to vote are enabled to vote and that those who wish to be candidates have as few obstacles put in their way as possible. Those principles have guided our attitude to both the report of the Select Committee and the Government's White Paper, and will infuse our response to the legislation when it is put before us.
I shall deal in chronological order with the right to vote. We agree with both the recommendation of the Select Committee and the proposal in the White Paper that there shall be no disturbing of the right held by Irish and Commonwealth citizens. We accept that the right to vote of Irish citizens resident in this country is an anomaly, but it is long established and no one else has sought to disturb it. The Irish are part of our community, have long been so, and they make a positive and constructive contribution to our political and social life. They expect to vote; they have been used to having the vote, and no evidence was adduced to the Select Committee or anywhere else why it should be taken away. The unanimous recommendation of the all-party Select Committee, the acceptance of the Government's recommendation and the fact that in this wide-ranging 'and important debate not a single hon. Member from any party on either side of the House has sought to suggest that there should be any disruption of the

entitlement of Irish citizens resident in the United Kingdom to vote in British elections will, I hope, put that matter to rest once and for all.
Unfortunately, I cannot give the same warmth or welcome to the Government's proposal that British citizens resident abroad should be enabled to vote in the constituency where they last had residence. As the Government suggest, that means that about 600,000 voters will be added to the poll from the 3 million British citizens currently estimated to be resident abroad. As a proposal, that goes well beyond the Select Committee's recommendation.
I make it very clear that our opposition to that is not unpatriotic, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) attempted to suggest in one of his vitriolic moments, but is based upon deep and sensible reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) suggested that a case could be made out for giving the vote to British citizens temporarily resident abroad—those who are working for Britain on a short term, temporary basis, who expect to come back and who have permanent residence here. One must acknowledge that one can make a case for that, but it would create anomalies that might lead to a dangerous situation.
However, we cannot accept, nor has a case for it been put forward tonight, that the vote should be extended to those who have left this country once and for all. There is no reason why we should allow those who have emigrated, who in a sense have renounced their British citizenship—some go to distasteful regimes such as South Africa—to exercise the right to vote in this country for a period of up to about eight and a half years. A powerful and overwhelming case can be made against extending the franchise to those who have sought tax havens abroad, who are abroad deliberately and specifically to avoid paying United Kingdom tax or rates.
Support for that contention has come from Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) did not subscribe entirely to the notion that votes should not be extended to British citizens resident abroad, but at least suggested that those people should be shown to have some connection with the United Kingdom. He argued that seven years might be too long and that the period should be no more than five years. He touched on a very important point. That point has been alluded to by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If one is to give the right to vote to British citizens who have been abroad for, say, eight years, those people will in the main have lost contact with the community in which they resided and where they voted. They cannot be said to be knowledgeable about the candidates, the election or the issues in the constituency. Indeed, they may not even be knowledgeable about national issues. They will be totally out of touch.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) properly said that such people, if given the vote, might be voting before very important and serious events at a national or constituency level had taken place Such a provision would make a mockery of the Burkean notion that electors in a constituency should be able to appraise the integrity, character, ability and policies of the candidates before them and to make a decision accordingly. For those and other reasons, we oppose, and will continue firmly to oppose any proposal to extend the franchise to British citizens living abroad who no longer have any stake in this country or any commitment to it.
If we are to extend the franchise, we must answer certain questions of a mundane but important nature. Are candidates to be given the free post so that they can circulate election material to voters registered in their constituencies who happen to be abroad? Are Members of Parliament, once elected, and having constituents who live in far-flung outposts of the world, to be given free postal facilities to communicate with them, and free telephone facilities—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: And to be able to hold a surgery in the Bahamas?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Perhaps we should indeed be able to visit them as well. If the links between a Member of Parliament and his constituents are important—and they are—the Government will have to address themselves to such issues, which they have so far neglected.
Once we have decided who is eligible to vote, we must ensure that people are properly registered and that the register of electors is accurate. It is crucial to ensure that the maximum number of those entitled to vote have the opportunity actually to cast their vote. That is not the case if they are not on the register. The hon. Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South all reminded us that at the moment the register is inaccurate.
In his evidence to the Select Committee, David Butler said that there were serious and substantial shortcomings of both inclusion and omission in the electoral register.
The report of the Select Committee points out that the level of inaccuracy has become unacceptably high. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was estimated that 3 or 4 per cent. of the names on the register were inaccurate—in other words, names were redundant or had been omitted. According to reports issued by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, the register can now be inaccurate at any one time not by the 6 to 7 per cent. suggested by the Home Secretary—and even that percentage would mean hundreds of thousands of people—but by between 6 and 16 per cent. Indeed, in inner city areas such as inner London it is not unusual for the electoral register in a borough to be inaccurate by 14 per cent. at the time when it is drawn up. Clearly, that is totally indefensible and unaceptable. That percentage represents about two million or four million people who are precluded from voting.
The situation is especially disturbing and distressing when one considers the type of people who are excluded. A report from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys demonstrates, and the evidence given by Dr. Butler and Professor Keith-Lucas also suggests, that the excluded people tend to be members of the ethnic minorities, young attainers—those aged 16 to 17—and people living in multi-occupied accommodation such as bedsits and lodging houses. Such people, especially young blacks and members of the ethnic minorities, are often alienated from our society and political system. Everything possible should be done to ensure that they participate fully in the democratic process and that they are given every encouragement and ability to be registered and to vote. In that context, we welcome the recommendations of the Select Committee to extend a process of education and publicity to ensure that people know their rights and when the electoral register is compiled.
We support the recommendation and what the Government have done so far to ensure that there is a code of good practice so that we can insist that the basic practices of the most effective and successful electoral registration officers are adopted in areas where they are not as effective in increasing the accuracy of the register. We were pleased to hear the Home Secretary announce that a code of good practice will be available early in the summer and that a copy of the draft will be put in the Library. However, what will he do about the other Select Committee recommendations, none of which were mentioned in his speech and yet which are important in terms of ethnic minorities?
The Select Committee said that there should be greater efforts to ensure that Form A is circulated in the language of those to whom it is directed. We know that electoral officers are able to issue Form A in languages other than English, but are they doing that? If not, what steps is the Home Office taking to draw attention to that power and what steps is it taking to encourage the issuing of such circulars? We did not hear much about that from the Home Secretary. Perhaps the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will tell us a little more when he winds up.
What are the Government doing to redesign Form A so that it can be more easily understood and is more easy to fill in? They could do that in advance of legislation. That would enable people who are less literate or educated more easily to comply with the requests of the electoral registration officer.
We should consider more carefully the argument advanced in favour of a rolling register. The hon. Member for Corby argued for that. Such a system exists in the United States and yet it was dismissed almost out of hand by the Select Committee, which was tardy in its examination of evidence on this subject. It was also dismissed out of hand by the Government. There are good reasons why we should institute now a system by which the electoral register is updated regularly. With the advent of modern technology and access to computers, there is no reason why we cannot have an accurate electoral register.
Many hon. Members present know that many of our colleagues have computers in their offices. I understand that some put the electoral register of their constituency on a computer and update it regularly. Their computers are capable of that. If Members of Parliament can do that, I fail to see why those who run our electoral affairs and who are responsible for devising and drawing up the electoral register cannot also do so.
We are dealing with a fundamental and important subject. It is probably most important to ensure that people who are eligible and entitled to vote are registered. Their numbers are far greater than those involved in holiday votes or in overseas votes and yet the Government's response is tardy. They say that such provision would be expensive or bureaucratically inefficient. However, the Government are spending much more time and money on enfranchising other, much smaller, groups.

Mr. William Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that American experience shows that where rolling registers are used there is a dramatic increase in turnout in those states where they have been applied, especially in Minnesota and Maine.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I understand and appreciate the differences between our


electoral system, the United States electoral system and the electoral system of the states within the United States. However, even given those differences and the fact that we use the register only once a year, there is no reason on grounds of cost and technical aptitude why we should not have a more accurate register than we have. That is especially important because those who are omitted, often through no fault of their own, tend to be the poor, the inarticulate, the deprived, the disadvantaged and those who will become alienated if they are not already alienated from society, from the political system. No hon. Member would wish that to happen.
When we have established the eligibility of those entitled to vote and the accuracy of the register, it is important to consider the manner in which we enable people to cast their votes. We welcome the extension of the hours of voting to the earlier hour of 7 am. For the same reason we oppose the reduction in polling time from 10 pm to 9 pm. We welcome the provision of as much facility and ability for the maximum number of people to cast their votes and some of the changes to the regulations covering absent votes.
We endorse the Government's proposal to maintain an absent vote, which is in effect a permanent list, for service men and women, and for those who are registered blind or physically disabled. However, we dissent from the suggestion that there should be more severe restrictions, and that, for example, the electoral registration officer's area of discretion on countersignatures should be limited. We shall deal with those matters when the legislation comes before us.
Despite the strictures to the contrary of the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), we welcome and endorse the extension of the right of an absent vote to holidaymakers. We do not dissent from the words of either the White Paper or the Select Committee report to the effect that there is no reason in principle why those individuals who are going on holiday when a vote is likely to be cast should be refused the vote. The only difference is as to how we make that a reality in practice. We therefore welcome the extension of the category to those individuals who are unable or unlikely to vote in person on polling day so that they can apply for an absent vote. That applies especially to holidaymakers.
About 1 million people may be on holiday at any one time in May and June. Many of those individuals bitterly resent the suggestion that they cannot cast their votes. In my constituency pensioners in one of my labour groups worked hard and assiduously during the election campaign, but they were going on an organised holiday the day before the general election and felt bitter at not being able to participate in that election and in my victory. It is not the fault of the holidaymakers that they are going on holiday at a particular time. Many cannot choose the time of their holiday. Nor is it their fault that we do not have fixed elections, which would enable them to avoid their holidays clashing with polling day.
We welcome the Home Secretary's suggestion to reconsider his statement that the extension of the vote to those on holiday should not apply to Northern Ireland. As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, all constituents should have the same rights. It would not be right that an hon. Member were elected on a different basis from other hon. Members. We are all part of the United Kingdom and all our constituents should have the same rights, opportunities and abilities. If there are difficulties

in Northern Ireland about preventing abuse and providing security to enable people to cast their votes without interference, that matter must be dealt with separately. The right to cast a vote freely should apply to all individuals throughout the United Kingdom.
However we cannot give the same welcome to the Government's suggestion to restrict the absent vote to those who are on business. At the moment many workers, whether they be lorry drivers, fishermen, shift workers, construction workers or National Health Service staff, who are likely to be at work when an election is called are enabled to be on a permanent list of those entitled to cast a vote by post. The Government propose to restrict that right. In future every person in that category who currently has a right to a postal vote, more or less permanently, will have to apply separately for each election.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out, that would mean that, for example this year people in Portsmouth in that category would have had to have applied on three separate occasions for three elections.
The Transport and General Workers Union, which represents many of the people in that category, sent a memorandum to some hon. Members which claimed that it was difficult enough to identify such people and actually to encourage them to vote in the first place, and that what was needed least of all were further obstacles in the way of them actually casting their vote. Many of those people would forget to apply and many might in any event be away when they were required to apply. Many of them would assume that because they have had the vote more or less permanently for the past five or 10 years that there was no need to make a separate or additional application.
There has been no evidence of abuse, none was given to the Select Committee, and I suspect that none was available to the Government. The only argument that the Government advance is that the present provisions are too generous. That is a fatuous and futile argument for restricting an individual's right to vote in a democracy. It is not a good reason to restrict their democratic rights., and we hope that the Government will see the force of the argument. If they do not, we shall have to oppose them when the legislation comes before the House.
Virtually every hon. Member who has participated in the debate has referred to those people seeking to become candidates and to the amount of the deposit. We believe that as few obstacles as possible should be placed in the way of those who wish to be candidates. We cannot therefore endorse the Government's proposal to increase the deposit to £1,000 and to reduce the threshold before forfeiture takes place to 5 per cent. We should prefer that there be a lower deposit. My view is that there should be no deposit. That view seems to be overwhelmingly endorsed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It has been the view of those hon. Members speaking for the Welsh and Scottish National parties, of my hon. Friends and the hon. Members for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) and for Corby. They all showed cross-party support for a deposit lower than the one that the Government suggest, or no deposit at all.
What arguments have the Government advanced for increasing the deposit? The Home Secretary seemed to suggest that anyone who is not a member of a political party and was not a party candidate, was, by definition, frivolous or destructive. He almost made it sound like a crime not to be a member of a political party. The major


argument advanced is that we must deter frivolous candidates. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out that not all frivolous candidates are poor. Some of the so-called candidates are extremely rich. They will not be deterred by the increase.

Mr. Greville Janner: rose—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Some of the richest candidates are the most frivolous and offensive. In any event, who is to judge which are frivolous candidates and which are not?

Mr. Janner: rose

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Many of the candidates, who, as every one of us would agree are serious, are often relatively poor. That applies to the Welsh Nationalist party and to the Ecology party. The hon. Member for Caernarfon will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Welsh Nationalist party lost 24 deposits at the last election which cost £4,800. Under the new proposal, that would cost £24,000, because none of those candidates got the 5 per cent. that will be required.
Equally, 63 members of the Ecology party lost their deposits at a cost of £9,450. None of them got the 5 per cent. that is required under the new proposal, and that would cost £63,000. Whatever our political point of view, none of us would argue that they are frivolous or not serious candidates. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) said, many independent candidates who gathered few votes nevertheless raised important and substantial issues and made an important contribution to our elections and or democracy.
The other argument is that candidates may exploit the electoral system for commercial reasons. Some certainly do, but £1,000 will not deter those who will get some commercial benefit from standing as candidates. Some people argue that this should be deplored because they can send commercial material through the post, but as we know that is already covered by the existing law and by the power that is given to returning officers.
There is no real argument at all for increasing the deposit to £1,000. As hon. Members on both sides have said, it is better for the electorate to be left the choice of determining who are frivolous and who are not. It is better for the electorate to be able to demonstrate clearly that the Communist party and the National Front have no significant or substantial support in a constituency or, indeed, the nation. That is for the electorate to decide, not for Parliament. It is not for us to legislate on that.

Mr. Janner: Will my hon. Friend now give way?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: All these measures must be set in the context of the Government's overall attitude to democaratic rights and individual liberties. In this delicate matter it is difficult to accept that the Government have not been looking after their own party interests. We cannot accept their protestations of sincerity and impartiality. Quite properly, we must put their proposals in the context of their attack on democratic rights and civil liberties in other areas.
We must set their proposals on this issue beside their proposals in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and their restrictions on civil liberties in the Data Protection Bill. We must set them in the context of the taking away of the right to vote in the metropolitan counties. They must

be set in the context of the withdrawal of trade union rights at GCHQ. They must also be set in the context of the Government's proposal to attack trade union political funds, and their attempt to interfere in trade union democratic processes.
In that context it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that, as always, the Government are looking at their own interests. that suspicion is strengthened by the fact that the increase in the deposit will favour them and no one else, and that the increase in the vote to those on holiday or overseas and the restriction in the vote to those at work will favour the Tories and no one else. Their refusal to improve the accuracy of the register to ensure that the poor and inarticulate can vote favours them and no one else. For those and other reasons, I ask my hon. Friends to join me in voting against the White Paper.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): There is an irony in the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) using my time for his attack on the Government's alleged abuse of liberty. It is my liberty that has been adversely affected by the hon. Gentleman, but I know, now that he has sat down, that he will not feel resentful at that charge because he will know that, as ever, his tongue has run away with him.
I begin by paying tribute to the Select Committee and its report. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) who said that no Select committee had done more to vindicate the Government's decision to set up new-style Committees five years ago. I warmly endorse that. I felt that when I was a Back Bencher, and I feel it now. The Committee has issued a series of reports on matters of considerable importance in home affairs. It has carried out its work in great detail and managed to do so in a non-partisan spirit, which makes its reports enormously valuable.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne that these issues have been shelved for too long. I think that we would all agree with that. The truth is that, although it is most important for democracy that the electoral machinery be kept up to date, on only four previous occasions this century have Bills such as that which we propose to introduce next Session been brought before the House. The last debate on any of the matters that we have discussed today was as long ago as 1969.
Against that background, I should have thought that we would all agree that there must be changes. The only issue that concerns us is what those changes should be. I make it clear, as I have done from the moment when I first announced the Government's tentative views on these matters last October, that we do not approach these changes in any narrow or partisan spirit. We have looked at the Select Committee report and taken as our starting point the fact that it had significant cross-party agreement for its proposals.
In October, we set out our preliminary views, and before we published the White Paper we consulted all the parties represented in the House of Commons on detailed matters, and we were available for personal discussions if they were required. The White Paper is the Government's formal response to the Select Committee's report. In it we set out our views in detail and we back them up with


consultative documents on many of the more technical issues. I believe that we have fully vindicated the nonpartisan approach that we have adopted from the start.
In today's debate there have been differences of view on many crucial aspects. That is inevitable when one is considering the difficult subjects that we have been discussing, and the range of decisions that we have announced in the White Paper. Inevitably, some people will not accept some of those. However, I take comfort from the fact that, as far as I am aware, although right hon. and hon. Members from almost all the parties represented in the House have spoken today and we have had a wide range of opinion, as is only right, no one has said that we should not go ahead with legislation, and no one has found it impossible to accept most of what we propose. That is enormously heartening.
It is important that this debate is framed by the motion, to take note of the Government's response. We can issue no milder form of invitation to the House. We are not saying that we have reached the end of the line, these are our proposals, and we shall expect to force them through Parliament. That is why I regret that the Opposition feel that it is necessary to have a Division on this. It is wrong to say that we have been provocative. It would have been impossible to bring this matter before the House with a milder motion. At least in deference to the genuine attempt that the Select Committee made to wrestle with the problem, and our genuine attempt to take on board the many points that have been raised, we could have done without a Division.
Nevertheless, we shall try to proceed on the basis that we have already set out. I say particularly to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that while there can be no question of anyone having a right of veto over these proposals, we shall take carefully into account everything that has been said in the debate. We shall trawl through Hansard and look at it in detail. That is only proper, considering the care and skill that many hon. Members have put into their speeches. But no one can have a right of veto. That has never been our way. By that I mean the way of Governments considering these matters.
The last time we considered these issues, in relation to 18-year-old voters, there was no question of the then Opposition's objections being a bar to such proposals. Of course, it is not always possible to arrive at conclusions that everyone can accept when people who are notionally in alliance with each other begin from different standpoints, as in the case of the SDP and the Liberals on the crucial issue of the deposit, or shift their ground during the course of discussions, as is true of the Labour party.
The letter that we received from the Leader of the Opposition at the end of last year appeared to be against holiday postal votes but in favour of some increase, albeit modest, in the deposit, and made no mention of signatures. Yet today we are told that the Opposition are in favour of holiday postal votes but against the deposit, and seem to think that signatures should be brought in. To try to meet all those points when the ground seems to shift from week to week is no easy task. We shall do the best we can, but there can be no question of the Government being teased by those who have shifted their ground into a merry dance that smacks less of fairness and non-partisanship and more of feebleness and vacillation. That is not the way that we intend to approach the concluding stages of such important matters.
There is no question of our having thrown over large parts of the Select Committee's report. The truth is that we have almost totally accepted the principal recommendations. We have, indeed, followed the Select Committee in a number of the areas of detail that it raised, particularly on the crucial point of the accuracy of the register. We attach some importance to that, and I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member for Knowsley, North—as there is not too much that we are fated to be in agreement on tonight—that we take very seriously the problem of increasing ethnic registration, and we certainly believe that form A should be translated and issued in ethnic minority languages.
We intend to issue a code of practice later in the summer, which we have been discussing extensively with electoral registration officers. It will dilate in great detail on the problems of the ethnic minorities, and we shall sponsor a series of meetings between electoral registration officers and representatives of the ethnic minorities. We accept, as any responsible Government are bound to do, that the reports of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys revealed something very disquieting about the accuracy of the register, and that cannot be permitted to continue.
It is true that we could not accept the recommendation on multiple voting, which is the only other good example of where we were unable to accept one of the Select Committee's major recommendations. We could not accept it any more than the previous Government felt able to accept the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference on the same point. One cannot separate the strands of registering someone for local and national elections on the same register. Whatever hon. Members may say about national elections, there can be no good reason why someone should not be able to vote in two districts in local elections if he pays rates in each. Given the sense of responsibility of some local authorities, we should strongly resist anything that would reduce the number of ratepayers who vote in local elections.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I am sorry, but I cannot give way, although I know that the hon. Gentleman gave way to me. He was not timed, but he spoke for longer than I have done so far, due to the exceptional generosity of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North. I have written to the hon. Gentleman several times on the subject of multiple registration and he knows that my door is always open to him. I shall have a cup of some soothing beverage waiting for him if he should care to trot round so that we can have another go at it.
I do not hear any member of the Select Committee objecting to the fact that instead of British residence in the EEC for an unlimited period, we have substituted the whole world plus a seven-year term.
With regard to the deposit, I hardly think that the Select Committee would blame us for being more generous by saying that 7·5 per cent. should fall to 5 per cent. That major change was merited. [Interruption.] None of the Select Committee's Labour Members who managed to survive the general election are in the Chamber, and that includes a Labour home affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). I do not know whether he has been locked up for the day in case he does not agree with some of the recent changes.

Mr. Robin Corbett: He is on the Terrace.

Mr. Mellor: That is a good idea and it might be worth taking up later.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) appeared to be suggesting at one point that the Select Committee had come out against overseas voters. In fact, it did not. It was troubled that some three million people all over the world, might have been enfranchised however long they had lived abroad. Our proposal, which narrows it down to seven years, will extend the franchise by 600,000. I believe that to be eminently right, and long overdue.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me two specific points on which I am glad to be able to give the reassurance that he seeks. On parish council elections, we share the view that it would be desirable for postal voting to be available. The National Association of Local Councils is looking at the resource implications of this. It is hoped that it will come out with a report that we can accept, but it must depend on the nature of the report.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the availability of absent voting on a longer-term basis for those who claim an absent vote by reason of their occupation, service or employment. We have repented of the proposal that is included in the White Paper, I am glad to tell him, as a result of his extreme eloquence and that of other hon. Members on the matter.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North, referring to our position on this matter, said that it was fatuous and futile as a restriction. The hon. Gentleman's attitude to British citizens overseas, in the context of what I think he intended as an eloquent plea that as many people as possible should vote, in my view, was also fatuous and futile. I hope that, in the same spirit that we have approached this one matter, he might change his mind in that respect.
I deal next with the three principal areas for change, and I begin with holiday votes. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke with his customary eloquence and skill, and subjected the proposal to a rigorous analysis. I have to accept that a great deal of what he said was true. As he indicated, this will be a major widening of the availability of postal votes. While there is a hurdle that has to be crossed—there will have to be a counter-signature and there will be criminal sanctions for making a statement known to be wrong—the fact is that many people who today would not be eligible for postal votes will get them. However, we found ourselves in the dilemma that it is impossible, with the already complex list of those who may qualify for a postal vote, to add a major group like holiday-makers—a major and rather nebulous group—without examining root and branch whether we should sweep away the many restrictions and categories that exist and say that there should be one test. The test that we have elected for is that of the individual being unable, or likely to be unable, to go to the polls on the day.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, that leads to an extension of postal voting. One can think of cases in which that might be considered undesirable, and practices could emerge that might undermine the ability of people to vote in as fair a way as if they went to the polling station. We surely have to accept that a greater injustice will be done if we deny millions of our fellow citizens the right to vote because, through no fualt of their own, they

chose to go on holiday, having made that decision long before they thought that it would enter a Prime Minister's head to call a general election. As the old cliché has it, this is an idea whose time has come, and its time came at the last election. I should not care to go to the electorate again without having changed this, and I feel confident that many hon. Members share this view.
On the question of overseas voting—and I have to say this again—I find it profoundly depressing that the official Opposition should be opposed to this proposal. I think that it is most unfortunate and something of an attack on people who, to further the interests of this country, go and work abroad. I can think of no more unreal a charge that can be laid than that this matter can be discussed in terms of lotus eaters, tax evaders and fugitives from justice. After all, as a result of the efforts of successive Governments, we export a larger amount of our gross national product than any other country. That requires people to go overseas. To quote my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. Mackay), it requires people to go out to bat for Britain overseas. It is an insult to suggest that, somehow because there might be a small number of so-called lotus eaters, those people should not have the right to vote. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) that the right hon. Member for Gorton was deeply reactionary in what he said about that.
There is already a substantial measure of agreement on these matters, and I hope that the Opposition will change their view. It does not do them a great deal of credit to be making such points. To the extent that we need to meet the problem of the tax evader, the lotus eater and all the figures of Socialist mythology, we have done so by applying the seven-year rule, and I hope that is helpful.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that there is a distinction to be drawn between those who are permanently resident abroad and those who are only temporaraily resident abroad? Will he take that point on board when he comes to consider the matter further before legislation is brought before the House.

Mr. Mellor: The White Paper makes that distinction by saying seven years. It is difficult to say de novo from the outset whether somebody is going abroad permanently. That would require the kind of vetting arrangements that I should have thought Labour Members, wearing their civil liberties hats, would find profoundly disturbing. One may look for consistency, but one does not always find it.
Our proposal on the deposit is in no sense an attempt to confine elections to representatives of established parties. We have to face the irresistible fact that standing for an election confers privileges and creates expenses for the community that demand some hurdle to be crossed. That has been the view ever since the changes in procedures were introduced in the House in 1918.
I am not sure whether some of those hon. Members who spoke in a rather cavalier way about what it means to be a parliamentary candidate have taken on board the extent of the statutory privileges that are granted to someone who stands for Parliament. They have the right to send an election communication, post free, at a possible cost to the public of £8,000. They have a right to the free use of public rooms and school rooms for election meetings. I agree with every word that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said from a sedentary


position. His hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North, concerned about taking up my time, was not concerned to give him any of it.
Candidates have the right to attend nomination proceedings, inspect and object to the validity of another candidate's papers, which opens the way to frivolity. They have a right of veto over radio and television broadcasts. It comes ill from those who say that we should have the maximum discussion of those issues to permit some tuppenny-ha'penny joke candidate to object to everyone else appearing on the television. Candidates have a right to attend the issue of postal ballot papers, a right of access to polling stations, which is not to be taken trivially given the importance of what goes on there, and a right to attend the count and to appoint counting agents. That can be a licence to disrupt, as we know from some of the extreme candidates that we have to deal with.
Therefore, I regard any proposal, even to leave the deposit as it is, as unacceptable. The deposit teeters on the edge of descending to the level of farce currently reserved only to the dog licence, which I should not like to see the deposit reach. When I hear hon. Members saying that they want no restrictions at all on the right to stand—many did say that and not all on the Opposition Benches, I am sorry to say—I regard that as unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) made an interesting speech. The reasoning that led to the introduction to the deposit in 1918 is as valid now as it was then. What was decided in 1918 did not fully emerge from the hon. Gentleman's rather class biased analysis of the proceedings in Parliament.

Mr. Sean Hughes: Me?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman says "Me?" with an innocence that I find touching. Yes, I do mean him.
Until 1918 there was a requirement that not only did a candidate have to pay his own expenses, but he had to pay the returning officer's expenses as well. It was thought, rightly, that that was oppressive. As a result of the decision to rescind that, it was thought that there had to be a quid pro quo in the form of a deposit. Interestingly, that proposal emerged from a Government presided over by a Liberal Prime Minister. When Liberals have nothing else very much to say, they often say with some pride that it was a Liberal Prime Minister who invented pensions. They do not say that it was a Liberal Prime Minister who invented the deposit. The Asquithian Liberal, who spoke for the rump which I believe the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed now considers that he represents, said that it was a splendid innovation. How things change when our bottoms move from one side of the Chamber to the other.
The public have an interest in seeing that people, before they take on the privileges of being a candidate, also accept some of the obligations. They should be seen to be genuine candidates.
Some of the nonsenses are best summed up in the apology in the Oxford Mail which it may well have felt that the present law compelled it to make. It shows the sort of nonsense into which we get ourselves. On 12 January 1984, with a straight face, the Oxford Mail reports:
In an editorial on 19 December we described Mr. Peter Doubleday, a candidate at the last election, as a representative of the Raving Loony party. In fact, he stood for Cerberus the Aardvark.
That kind of undergraduate humour may well have caused amusement for some people, but we have to ask ourselves

whether it is in the public interest to make it easy for that kind of situation to be perpetuated. If such a person is prepared to find £1,000, so be it. None of us has an interest in shutting someone up, provided that he is prepared to pay a fee commensurate with the privileges obtained and the costs created by reason of standing as a parliamentary candidate. But I do not think that our democracy is shown to be effective if it appears that, for a mere whim, and without any serious considerations, people can simply put in their nomination papers—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I have not the time to give way.—[HON.MEMBERS: "Money talks."] It is all very well to say that money talks. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentlemen who say that money talks have ever put up a penny of their own money towards a deposit, any more than I have. It is our supporters in the constituencies, who show that they want us to be their Members of Parliament, who collect the money and put it up.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was shocked—the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) would have reacted in the same way had he been present—at the proposal of the Opposition Front Bench that there should be no restrictions of a financial kind on standing for Parliament. The hon. Member for Walsall, North was shocked and surprised that the Opposition Front Bench should sanction making life easier for groups such as the National Front. It also surprises us.
I do not understand the logic of the suggestion that signatures are in any sense a substitute for the kind of commitment for which we have traditionally looked. We all know the ease with which people will sign things that are put in front of them. There is no commitment, on the part of anybody who signs a nomination paper, to vote for the candidate, and all kinds of problems and difficulties would ensue from such a practice.
A general election is a serious business. It is a matter of electing a Parliament and giving the country a Government. If we allow the system to be at best confused and at worst undermined by the kind of the people that The Times, in its editorial today, so rightly called "recent clown candidates", we do so at the peril of undermining one of the fundamental planks of our liberty—free, fairly fought and serious elections.
Perhaps I may put to the Opposition Front Bench, where the atmosphere seems to be somewhat light-headed, one thought that is worthy of a moment's consideration. When the citizens of barely two dozen nations around the globe enjoy the full rights to vote, we are perhaps taking a little too much for granted. Further, while many hundreds of millions of people would like to share the rights that we have, it is not the sign of a mature democracy if we allow elections to be submerged in a tidal wave of clown candidates; rather, it is a sign of decadence and complacency.
I appreciate that there is concern about the effect of the Government's proposals on some minority parties in the House. That is why I say in all sincerity that we shall consider, in the light of what has been said today, the proposals that we have brought forward for the level of the deposit. I give that assurance to those hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. I should have thought that what we said about the 5 per cent. level would give encouragement to


those parties who seriously enter into elections. After all, to get one vote in 20 is a lot easier than to get one vote in eight. I am glad that the leader of the Welsh nationalists agrees with that. Democracy depends on getting right not only the broad principles but the mechanics. The White Paper is a major step in that direction.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 273.

Division No. 385]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Golding, John


Anderson, Donald
Gould, Bryan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gourlay, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barnett, Guy
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Barron, Kevin
Heffer, Eric S.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Beggs, Roy
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Bell, Stuart
Home Robertson, John


Benn, Tony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hoyle, Douglas


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
John, Brynmor


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Caborn, Richard
Lambie, David


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Lamond, James


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Leighton, Ronald


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clarke, Thomas
Litherland, Robert


Clay, Robert
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Loyden, Edward


Cohen, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McCusker, Harold


Conlan, Bernard
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Craigen, J. M.
McNamara, Kevin


Crowther, Stan
McTaggart, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maginnis, Ken


Deakins, Eric
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Donald
Martin, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dormand, Jack
Maxton, John


Douglas, Dick
Maynard, Miss Joan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Michie, William


Eastham, Ken
Mikardo, Ian


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Harry
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Nellist, David


Fisher, Mark
O'Brien, William


Flannery, Martin
O'Neill, Martin


Forrester, John
Park, George


Foster, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Pavitt, Laurie


Godman, Dr Norman
Pendry, Tom





Pike, Peter
Soley, Clive


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Spearing, Nigel


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Prescott, John
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Strang, Gavin


Redmond, M.
Straw, Jack


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Richardson, Ms Jo
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Robertson, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Tinn, James


Rooker, J. W.
Torney, Tom


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rowlands, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Ryman, John
Welsh, Michael


Sheerman, Barry
White, James


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wigley, Dafydd


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Winnick, David


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Tellers for the Ayes


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe


Smyth, Rev W. M.  (Belfast S)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Alton, David
Freeman, Roger


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gale, Roger


Ancram, Michael
Galley, Roy


Ashby, David
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Ashdown, Paddy
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Goodlad, Alastair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gorst, John


Baldry, Anthony
Gow, Ian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Batiste, Spencer
Greenway, Harry


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gregory, Conal


Beith, A. J.
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bellingham, Henry
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Malcolm
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Budgen, Nick
Hanley, Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, John


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Cartwright, John
Harvey, Robert


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Churchill, W. S.
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayward, Robert


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cockeram, Eric
Heddle, John


Conway, Derek
Henderson, Barry


Cope, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Hickmet, Richard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hicks, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hind, Kenneth


Dykes, Hugh
Hirst, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Emery, Sir Peter
Holt, Richard


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hooson, Tom


Farr, Sir John
Hordern, Peter


Favell, Anthony
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Forman, Nigel
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Forth, Eric
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Hunter, Andrew


Fox, Marcus
Irving, Charles


Franks, Cecil
Jackson, Robert






Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Merchant, Piers


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Kennedy, Charles
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Key, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


King, Rt Hon Tom
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Kirkwood, Archy
Moate, Roger


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Knowles, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Knox, David
Moore, John


Lamont, Norman
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Lang, Ian
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Latham, Michael
Moynihan, Hon C.


Lawler, Geoffrey
Murphy, Christopher


Lawrence, Ivan
Neale, Gerrard


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Needham, Richard


Lee, John (Pendle)
Nelson, Anthony


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Neubert, Michael


Lester, Jim
Normanton, Tom


Lightbown, David
Norris, Steven


Lilley, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Oppenheim, Philip


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Lord, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


McCrindle, Robert
Parris, Matthew


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Patten, John (Oxford)


Macfarlane, Neil
Pawsey, James


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Penhaligon, David


Maclean, David John
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Maclennan, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Porter, Barry


McQuarrie, Albert
Powell, William (Corby)


Madel, David
Powley, John


Major, John
Price, Sir David


Malins, Humfrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Malone, Gerald
Raffan, Keith


Maples, John
Rathbone, Tim


Marland, Paul
Renton, Tim


Marlow, Antony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Mates, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Mather, Carol
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Maude, Hon Francis
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Rost, Peter


Mellor, David
Rowe, Andrew





Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thompson, Donald (Caldor V)


Ryder, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Thurnham, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Nicholas
Trippier, David


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waddington, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wainwright, R.


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walden, George


Shersby, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Silvester, Fred
Wallace, James


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waller, Gary


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Walters, Dennis


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Speed, Keith
Watson, John


Speller, Tony
Watts, John


Spencer, Derek
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wheeler, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitfield, John


Stanley, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Woodcock, Michael


Stokes, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stradling Thomas, J.
Yeo, Tim


Sumberg, David



Tapsell, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Mr. David Hunt and Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Terlezki, Stefan



Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Government's reply (Cmnd. 9140) to the First Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1982–83, House of Commons Paper No. 32, on the Representation of the People Acts.

British Shipbuilders

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move,
That the draft British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
The subject of the draft order before the House tonight is the borrowing limit of British Shipbuilders. That limit is the ceiling on the funds that British Shipbuilders may acquire from the Government or elsewhere. The principal element of these funds is public dividend capital voted by Parliament. Payments under the intervention fund and the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme do not count against this limit.
The limit currently stands at £1,000 million. It was raised to that level from £800 million by the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Act 1963 which gave the Secretary of State power to increase the limit further by order subject to affirmative resolution of the House, to £1,200 million. That would be done in single steps of no more than £100 million.
The order before us is the first to be introduced since the Act came into force. Its effect is to raise the borrowing limit by £100 million to £1,100 million. Of course, this is a permissive measure; it merely raises the potential limit. At the moment we are not voting the funds to be provided. That is a separate matter for Parliament, dealt with in the normal way through the Estimates procedure.
The reasons why we have laid the order now will be obvious. British Shipbuilders' borrowing at 31 March 1984 stood at £869 million. As the House knows, we have set the corporation an external financing limit for 1984–85 at £217 million. Of that amount, £170 million is public dividend capital that counts against the limit. The corporation's borrowing has already reached £869 million against the present limit of £1 billion, so, if it is to receive the support that we intend this year, the borrowing limit will have to be increased to accommodate it. We could have incorporated a higher limit in the legislation last year, but we felt that it was right that the House should have the opportunity to examine the finances of British Shipbuilders and debate orders such as this.
I hope that Opposition Members will not ignore the fact that the order provides scope for substantial increases in support for British Shipbuilders. I hope that we shall not have the usual argument that somehow the Government have failed to provide the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry with the support that it needs because the fact is that no less than £1,094 million has been provided for British Shipbuilders since 1979, over £1 billion in the form of public dividend capital, intervention fund money and the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme, which have all helped to carry the industry through a very difficult period, in depressed markets, and to sustain it through fierce competition from the far east and elsewhere.
The House last discussed the borrowing of British Shipbuilders in November 1983. Since then there has been a difficult and eventful period. In the recent past there were the unhappy events at Scott Lithgow. I say "unhappy", but, given the circumstances, the outcome was remarkable. The yard had lost the confidence of its customers and was unlikely to gain further orders, but

there is now every reason to believe that it will have a better future under new management in the private sector, with a fresh start. The change has also had the benefit of removing from the purview of British Shipbuilders the biggest loss-maker in the corporation.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Minister referred to Scott Lithgow. Will he acknowledge that the improvements that have taken place have involved the very real efforts of that work force, which was so crassly and badly maligned by the Minister and his colleagues in the recent past?

Mr. Lamont: I have been careful always not to attribute blame specifically or exclusively to the work force for the problems at Scott Lithgow. However, it would be a waste of this brief debate to go over those events again. Surely both sides of the House can agree that, now that the yard has been transferred to the private sector, we must wish it well. Having wiped the slate clean, with the Government's assistance, there is every reason to be more optimistic about it than one could have been a few months ago.
Radical changes have occurred in other areas. The strategy of British Shipbuilders has been to concentrate resources on its mainstream business. It has long been accepted by the present chairman and the chairman before that that ship repairing was not an appropriate activity for a nationalised corporation such as British Shipbuilders. I am glad that at last the corporation is getting on with its declared objective of getting out of ship repairing. I am glad that it has led not to closures, but to a new future. Readheads is now owned by its employees. Tyne Shiprepair and Grangemouth have been the subject of management buy-outs. I have visited Readheads. I have met the management of Tyne Shiprepair. I have been told that there have been dramatic changes in attitude as a result of the transfer. There are more flexible working practices and considerably increased productivity.
Ship repairing used to be the biggest loss-maker per head in British Shipbuilders. Now, Tyne Shiprepair anticipates making a modest profit. Four weeks after it was returned to the private sector, it secured work for some 27 ships, valued at some £3 million. Not all the problems have been solved, but the improved situation goes a long a long way towards justifying our view, which is also the view of the management of British Shipbuilders, that ship repair should be transferred to the private sector. We intend to implement that policy with regard to Falmouth and Vosper Thornycroft as well. Ship repairing faces a difficult future, but it will be far better equipped to face that future in the private sector.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend consider whether it is reasonable that the authentic private sector should be asked to compete with the privatised sector—the sector which is supplied with interest-free loans? The authentic private sector has to pay current rates of interest on the money that it borrows. How can it be expected to compete with firms which get interest-free capital?

Mr. Lamont: The Government and British Shipbuilders were anxious that when the yards were set up in private ownership they should be given a chance to get off the ground. If we had not given them that chance, we


should have lost 1,000 jobs instead of saving some 500 jobs. The yards receive no operating subsidy, as has been alleged.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I accept that there is a major difference between shipbuilding and ship repair as industrial sectors. My understanding is that British Shipbuilders' corporate plan, which the Minister will have received, states that in the short-term or medium-term future—which is as far as one can forecast—no yard closures are in prospect. Can the Minister confirm that view, or does he believe that there will be major yard closures in the immediate future?

Mr. Lamont: We received only recently the corporate plan. It is not normal Government practice to discuss the corporate plan with the House. When we have studied the plan and reached our conclusions, we will make a statement to the House, and an edited version of the plan will be made available to the House.
We wish to see as much of the merchant shipbuilding industry as possible surviving in this country as can survive with some basis of viability. Support is essential, but support must be reconciled with considerations of what we can afford. That is the framework within which we will approach the corporate plan.

Mr. Brown: Can the Minister assure the House that there is no major shipyard closure in the offing?

Mr. Lamont: No major shipyard closure is contemplated at the moment. I know of no such proposal. The hon. Gentleman has made such allegations again and again, although I have written to him in the past. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is anxious to undermine confidence and fan worry in his own area. He will drive away customers from his own yards.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend be more specific about Vosper Shiprepairers? Can he give a more detailed time scale for the privatisation?

Mr. Lamont: No, I cannot give more detail about the time scale. It is our intention that Vosper will be returned to the private sector. No specific date is in mind and there will have to be discussions with potential buyers. Things are at an early stage. As my hon. Friend will know, British Shipbuilders wanted a recent and important contract to be completed there before moving on to this stage.
There are now 13,000 fewer jobs in British Shipbuilders than there were six months ago. Job losses on that scale in any industry are regrettable, even if, as with shipbuilding, redundancies have been met voluntarily. I must observe, however, that as many as 4,000 of those jobs have not disappeared but rather have moved to the private sector. Apart from the shiprepair yards, some of the peripheral engineering companies have been sold and 3,000 jobs were kept with the disposal of Scott Lithgow. It is to be welcomed that, even in a period of contraction, some jobs have been moved to the private sector.
Faced with the continuing slump in the market for merchant ships, the corporation has had to close some of its loss-making operations. Three small yards—Clelands, Goole and Henry Robb—have had to close. I believe that the Henry Robb site has now been bought, although not as a shipbuilding facility. Of course we regret

the closure of those yards and the impact that closure has had and still has on Leith, Wallsend and Humberside. The closures underline the grim reality of the extremely—

Mr. Nicholas Brown: rose—

Mr. Lamont: This is a short debate. Many hon. Members wish to speak, and I have already given way twice to the hon. Gentleman. the closures underline the depressed market that the corporation faces. All of these developments mean that British Shipbuilders' organisation is changing rapidly, as hon. Members will notice when the accounts are published for the year. Instead of the five divisions that we had in the past, British Shipbuilders now operates under two—merchant, and composite and warship building. British Shipbuilders is cutting its Newcastle headqarters by 20 per cent. That will produce savings of £1·5 million which will be deployed towards product development.
I am also able to report that, with two notable exceptions — Vosper Shiprepairers and Vosper Thornycroft — all groups of workers at British Shipbuilders' yards have signed the productivity deal. That is welcome news, but now the corporation must press on with implementing the agreement, which is a key stage in getting British Shipbuilders' productivity up to the level of its European competitors. We are still often below those levels.
The development that I have described is encouraging, but it will take time to work through to the results of the corporation. Results for the year to 31 March are likely to show large losses again. For 1984–85, especially as a result of the removal of Scott Lithgow, it is expected that the losses will be less. One of the effects of last year's loss of £117 million was that the cash which was intended for much needed investment had to be used for funding losses. Investment rose to £49 million but was still below the target that the Government and the corporation envisaged.
British Shipbuilders' new orders, at 117,000 compensated gross registered tonnage, were its lowest ever. It was the same story in the EEC as a whole—1983 was the worst ever year for new orders. The world market, at 15 million CGRT, was up on the previous year, but a large part of that was accounted for by orders for Japanese-owned bulkers with far eastern yards. In so far as stronger world demand existed, it was not in evidence in western Europe.
Some new orders have been taken by British Shipbuilders since our previous debate. Sunderland Shipbuilders obtained the order from Stena for two diving support vessels. In January, Hall Russell received orders from the Ministry of Defence for three salvage vessels. In May, the Central Electricity Generating Board placed a major order with Govan for three colliers and a further order for an ash disposal barge with Ferguson Brothers. British Shipbuilders has said that, for the current year, it plans to secure new orders worth 200,000 CGRT. If that is achieved, it will not be far short of double the level that was achieved last year. By the end of the first quarter of this financial year, British Shipbuilders anticipates that it will have new orders that total about 60,000 CGRT, subject to the finalisation of contractual and financing details.
British Shipbuilders has been developing a fresh product strategy which is to contribute to securing new orders. Briefly, this strategy involves the reduction of


direct competition with far east price leaders and aims for increased value added areas of the market. It is exemplified by the sort of specialised diving support vessels being built by Stena.
BS is currently talking to potential owners in Hong Kong, Mexico, Ethiopia and West Germany. In order to achieve the target, BS needs to secure 75 per cent. of the orders that are currently under discussion. Achieving a "hit rate" of this size is a formidable task, but I know that Graham Day and his team with Government encouragement, are going all out to secure it. If this level of new ordes is achieved, BS will, as I have said, be operating at a much reduced level relative to past order books.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend give us the breakdown of the new orders between warships and merchantmen?

Mr. Lamont: The orders are entirely for merchant shipbuilding.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: rose—

Mr. Lamont: I shall not give way, because I should like to make progress.
In line with the lower level of merchant activity, BS is proposing to reduce its enginebuilding activity. BS has lost considerable sums on enginebuilding in recent years. A determined effort is now being made to contain engine costs and to move to a position where our marine engines are competitive with the rest of Europe.
The Government have just received the corporate plan, which we are considering. A statement will be made when we have come to conclusions on it. I emphasise that the Government recognise the difficult position that is faced by the industry, and the considerable efforts that are being made from the top to the bottom of BS to pull back what has been lost and to restore credibility, which has been missing in merchant shipbuilding. We are well aware that the cost-price gap faced by BS, as with all western European shipbuilders who are generally competing with the far east, is growing. We have therefore notified the European Commission of our intention to increase the level of price support we offer under the Intervention Fund. We, and increasingly our European partners, believe that the present arrangements are no longer sufficient to secure an adequate workload for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: How much?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman should think about his question because it is almost as stupid and idiotic as his last intervention. It is almost deliberately calculated to embarrass the Government, and to make it more difficult for the Government to safeguard capacity in his constituency.
The House will wish to know how matters stand on our notification. We are currently in the process of negotiation with Brussels. Since we are seeking a substantial rise, these proposals are not easy to accommodate within existing Community rules and they create difficulties for the Commission and other member states. We need to satisfy them that what we are seeking will not prejudice their interests, just as they need to satisfy us when their proposed aid regimes come up for examination.
I can tell the House that our notification has now proceeded to the point where the Commission has opened an Article 93 procedure. This is the standard mechanism used to enable the Commission to collect the information necessary to come to a decision on our proposals. The Government are absolutely clear that a subsantial increase in intervention fund is essential to the future of our industry. Graham Day put his case personally to Commissioner Andriessen yesterday. We shall go on pressing hard for a rapid and favourable decision, but, as I have emphasised, the interests of a number of countries are involved.
In the meantime, I urge potential buyers from United Kingdom yards to pursue their negotiations with United Kingdom builders rather than await the outcome of the Commission's deliberations. There is no reason to delay. As I have made absolutely clear before now we are ready to consider prospective orders on their individual merits on a case-by-case basis within the international rules.
While British Shipbuilders is pushing ahead with its difficult task on the merchant shipbuilding side, we are porposing to move towards the disposal of the profitable warship yards. Opposition Members do not like that policy, but their view is not the one that I always meet when I visit the yards. When I was in Vosper Thornycroft not so long ago I was told, "You should really get on with privatisation. If you get on with privatisation we could have our wages raised; we could increase productivity and lower prices, and we would have a far better chance of obtaining orders in the export market." We intend to give them that chance.
I have made it clear tonight that the thrust of our strategy towards the industry is to concentrate upon its mainstream businesses—merchant ships and engines. The order is designed mainly to enable greater support to be made available to merchant shipbuilding.
We recognise the difficulties merchant shipbuilding faces, and I outlined, if the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) had been listening, the far-reaching measures that are being taken by the corporation and the Government to help the industry to regain something of its markets.
Opposition Members always say that not enough money is being provided. They say that on every occasion that we have these orders and inject money into the industry. This year the industry will take £217 million of taxpayers' money to survive, and that is after the profits of warship building. That is a huge subsidy for a relatively small industry, employing about 12,000 people. That is a level of support that many other industries must envy.
Subsidy by itself cannot secure the industry's future. British Shipbuilders has a difficult task, but I am confident that the new chairman and the management are providing leadership and a sense of direction and that they will do everything that can be done to secure the future of the industry.
I urge the House to approve the order.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Almost inevitably these orders increasing borrowing power limits lead to a wider discussion about the problems faced by the industry under consideration.
Tonight is no exception, because the Opposition welcome the opportunity to debate, in some detail, the future of British Shipbuilders and shipbuilding.


Characteristically, the Minister, like his colleagues, almost always refers to the amount of taxpayers' money going into an industry, measuring it against the number of employees in the industry. A great many more employees were involved in shipbuilding when he assumed responsibility for it than there are now.
Most Opposition Members and many people in shipbuilding would hold the Minister responsible for that position rather than the taxpayer or anyone else. It does the Minister's case no good to argue that because 12,000 of British Shipbuilders' employees are taking £217 million of what he described as taxpayers' money—as if those who work in British Shipbuilders are not taxpayers—they are some kind of poor beggars who should be eternally grateful for these handouts. The men and women who work in shipbuilding are probably more interested in restructuring and rebuilding the industry into its former greatness than the Minister appears to be. Like his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Minister said that the Government have only just received the corporate plan. In fact, they received it in October 1983—

Mr. Lamont: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ewing: There is no point the Minister shaking his head, because we know that for a fact.
They then asked British Shipbuilders to provide a strategy statement, because they did not agree with the market projection assessments contained in the corporate plan. What has just been received is not the corporate plan but the strategy statement for which the Government asked.
The Minister should be able to tell the House that there is fairly wide disagreement between British Shipbuilders' assessment of the merchant shipping market and the Government's assessment of that market. That stands between the Government and British Shipbuilders, and between the Government and the House, regarding a statement to the House on the corporate plan submitted in October last year.
Indeed, if my information is correct, the Government have gone back to British Shipbuilders and asked for a further refinement of the strategy statement. I doubt whether this is a possibility before the House rises for the summer recess, but as soon as we return I hope that the Government will by then have considered the corporate plan, the strategy statement and the up-to-date information for which they have asked so that they can make a comprehensive statement to remove some of the uncertainties that at present prevail in the shipbuilding industry.
It was noticeable that the Minister did not mention the problems in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) relating to Cammell Laird. The loss of the Sun Oil oil rig contract in that yard was a serious blow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) asked about the possibility of realising the 75 per cent. target arising from the discussions with shipowners who are likely to place orders. It was particularly unfortunate for the Minister to say that British Shipbuilders is having discussions with a number of companies throughout the world but that to meet the target which has been set—I do not know whether it was set by the Government or by British Shipbuilders—it would need to achieve a 75 per cent. strike rate.
One can almost hear the Minister, come October or November, saying that British Shipbuilders had not met that target and that therefore the consequences were A, B, C and D. That is what leads my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East so forcefully to express his understandable concern and worry about the shipyards on Tyneside.
The Minister dwelt at length on ship repairing. Looking around the House—I exclude the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) who played a leading part in the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977—I see that precious few Conservative Members present appreciate that ship repairing was not part of the Labour Government's Bill. The ship repair sector asked to be taken into the nationalised shipbuilding sector. The Minister eulogises about returning ship repairing to the private sector, as if somehow or other the Labour Government wrested it from the private sector against its will. In fact the ship repair sector came to the Government and asked us to take it over.
The Minister is keen on quoting the amount of taxpayers' money that b as been poured into public sector industries. Substantial sums of taxpayers' money have been poured into ship repairing, but the taxpayer will get no benefit from it. The Minister mentioned the Grangemouth ship repairing company in my constituency. He should know that that company has always been profitable. I do not have any criticism of the management and those who have bought out of the company.
Conservative Members regard themselves as the guardians of the public purse, and they should understand who will now get the benefit of the taxpayers' investment in ship repairing since 1977 and whenever the privatisation takes place. I understand that the Government's time scale is up to March 1986. They want the warship division transferred to private ownership and ship repairing returned to private ownership before then.
In the meantime, substantial sums of money have been invested in both sectors. The private companies will get the benefit of all that public money. The Minister knows, too, that that investment will not be reflected in the selling price of either the wars up division or the ship repairing sector.
If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will be saying something about Scott Lithgow, and we all learned a lesson from the story of that. We did not give the highly skilled work force sufficient time to change its skills from building vessels to building the most advanced technology in oil rig drilling equipment. There is no doubt that the semi-submersible rigs being built at Scott Lithgow are the most advanced of any of their kind in the world.
A lot of money was lost on that contract, mostly because the work force was not given time to change its skills. I hope that that will be taken into account when concluding contracts. It was not the work force that signed the contract for the BP rig, but the management, under Sir Robert Atkinson. The shop stewards were not involved, and did not put pen to paper, but they and the work force have been held responsible. Any consequences that flow from the management decision to sign that contract, which everyone knows had terms that could not be met, will be borne by the work force. The Secretary of State for Scotland went around Scotland describing them as workers in a paddy field. He is not here tonight.
None of us should be too proud to learn that when it comes to the transition to the high technology rig building from the ordinary shipbuilding, we must give the workers the new skills, techniques and technology that are involved. The offshore oil industry is a very different industry from that of merchant shipping.
The Minister did not mention the need for a link between a shipbuilding policy and a maritime policy, and I hope that he will develop this in detail on another occasion. It is astonishing to me that we are a trading nation, yet no one has even begun to consider the necessity to link maritime policy and the requirements of merchant shipping to the shipbuilding industry in this country. It is tragic, because we are light years behind our competitors in this regard. Anybody who reads the material that comes from Norway, Germany, Japan and many of our fiercest competitors will realise that there is a clear link between merchant shipping requirements, maritime policy and shipbuilding. Unless we get down to establishing such a link in this country, I am afraid that we will go on staggering from crisis to crisis in the shipbuilding industry.
It will be obvious already, if it was not obvious earlier, that the Opposition will not vote against the order. I wish to put down our marker that, when the Minister of State or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes a statement on the corporate plan, the updated strategy statement and the many implications that that will have for British Shipbuilders, we will want a full day's debate in Government time. That statement will probably decide the future of the British shipbuilding industry in this country until the end of the century, not just for five, six or seven years. The Minister of State knows that investment programmes in shipbuilding extend far beyond five or six years.
When that statement is made and the strategy is laid out, it will decide the future of the British shipbuilding industry in this country for the next 20, 30 or 40 years. It is therefore vital that the House has an opportunity to pass judgment on the Government's policy. In my view, it will be the Government's policy rather than the policy of British Shipbuilders. This divergence of view can already be seen between British Shipbuilders and the Government on the question of the available market, in particular with regard to the merchant fleet and the maritime side of shipping.
Having put down that marker, I repeat that we will not vote against the order, but I hope that the Minister of State will take on board some of the things that I have said and the warnings that I have given, because we will want to return to the matter at greater length in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Don Dixon: The order gives the Opposition the opportunity to make what we consider to be important points because of our concern and alarm at the systematic rundown of the shipbuilding industry. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). The order deals with the borrowing power of British Shipbuilders, and, as a maritime nation, we cannot divorce shipbuilding from shipping. It is inconceivable that an island such as this, almost totally dependent on shipping for defence, food, fuel and trade, can allow the maritime industry to disappear.
Each section of the industry has different problems. The shipowner is faced with fierce competition and with low freight rates because of the world recession. The shipbuilding industry has few orders, and suffers from ruthless competition from the far east, and from hidden subsidies in almost every country involved in shipbuilding. Marine engineering has to scour the world for orders.
Shipping and shipbuilding is not a dying industry. According to the experts, by the year 2000 the world population will have increased by 50 per cent., and there will be another two billion people to feed. Therefore, by the end of the century, shipping will be a growth industry.
The number of merchant ships in the country registered and owned by United Kingdom companies has dropped from 1,200 to 780 in the period 1979 to 1983, a loss of 420 merchant ships and 15 million deadweight tonnage. According to the General Council of British Shipping, on present trends, it is forecast that by the end of 1985 there will be under 600 vessels owned and registered in the United Kingdom. The council also forecasts that the number of United Kingdom seafarers will have dropped from 80,000 in 1979 to fewer than 30,000 by the end of 1985. That is a loss of 50,000 seafarers to a maritime nation. Indeed, the Minister should read the very good document produced by the National Union of Seamen and the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Section.
The importance of shipbuilding and marine engineering to areas such as Clydeside, Merseyside and Tyne and Wear cannot be underestimated, as the work force there is totally dependent on heavy engineering. If a shipyard, a ship repair yard or a marine engineering company closes in those areas, there is little chance of alternative work. Indeed, in the Tyne and Wear area, 25 per cent. of manual workers depend on heavy engineering compared with 8 per cent. in the rest of the country. That gives hon. Members some idea of how important the industry is to areas such as Tyne and Wear.
Indeed, on British Shipbuilders' present plans, for the first time in living memory there will not be any shipbuilding berths on the south side of the river Tyne. Hon. Members should make no mistake about it, the Government's policy to privatise the warship yards will be disastrous for the British shipbuilding industry. The most recent shipbuilding Bill only gave the Minister enabling powers, and we hope that he will not use them. The Minister talks about taxpayers' money being used to subsidise shipyard workers, but does not he realise that if the warship yards are privatised, taxpayers' money will be going into the profits of private owners?
It is vital that this country should retain a merchant fleet and shipbuilding capacity, because in 1983, the industry earned £1·5 billion in net balance of payments. Shipping, shipbuilding and engineering employ 290,000 people, most of whom live in areas that are totally dependent on heavy engineering. By weight, nearly 100 per cent. of our imports and exports are still carried by ships. Meeting our essential defence requirements, such as the carriage of strategic materials to and from the United Kingdom, and operations such as the defence of the Falkland islands would not be possible if the industry perished. If this country is to remain a successful maritime power, it is essential that we should have a merchant fleet, a shipbuilding industry and a marine engineering industry.
I shall be brief, as many of my hon. Friends want to make constituency points. The Government should have


a maritime policy, as recommended by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry some years ago. That is one of the recommendations that the Minister has never mentioned. During all our debates on shipbuilding, the Minister has never once suggested the recommendation of that Select Committee. We should have a Minister of shipping who is responsible for, and speaks for the maritime industry. We would even accept the Minister who opened this debate.
The industry should have political and financial support during the current world recession. A positive and coordinated Government policy is urgently required. We also require a scrap and build scheme. For years we have heard talk of such a scheme. In 1977, the EEC had a policy on scrap and build. It was brought back in 1979. It has now disappeared again. I believe that West Germany or one of the other European nations is against such a scheme. We cannot afford to wait until the EEC comes up with such a policy. It is essential that we, as a maritime nation, should determine our own scrap and build scheme if we are to have a shipbuilding and marine engineering industry.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister knows that we shall be supporting him tonight on the order. But he is wrong tonight, as he has been wrong on other occasions, to say that the united response from the Opposition Benches means that the Government are not putting forward enough money for the industry. I say tonight, as I have said on other occasions, that there is no way that we can judge whether the sum is adequate, too little or too much. Since I became a Member of the House in 1979 we have never had a debate about the borrowing and financial requirements of the industry and with that a debate on the corporate plan. Until we know what the Government see as the structure of the industry we cannot sensibly discuss the financial needs of that industry.
We shall be supporting the Government in the Lobbies tonight if it comes to a vote, for the simple reason that we know that without this financial support many more jobs would be at risk than have currently disappeared over the past year. In the absence of that corporate plan we look to Government statements on the future of the industry. We are told that there is one guiding principle—that some yards will survive and some may not. Those that do will be those that compete successfully for orders. I suggest that either the Government, or forces elsewhere, are now beginning to undermine that policy. I do so in respect of Cammell Laird in my constituency.
I need not tell the Minister or any other hon. Member how worried we are, as a town, about the future of that industry. I do not make a plea just for the work force; I would willingly do that. I do not make a plea for those industries, and the jobs of workers in them, which supply Cammell Laird; I would willingly do that. If Cammell Laird does close, the Government will be shutting us off from a long-term industrial future because Cammell Laird is the only centre in the area where people are trained in any great number.
Let me look at one particular order. Information has been leaked to me about the tender for the BP SWOPS tanker—the single well oil production system. Hon. Members are making noises behind me, but Members are often given information and they have to judge whether the source is reliable. I am happy to stand by my track record

over 10 years. As I understand it, BP invited 11 yards to tender. Laird was one of those yards. Those 11 tenders went to the BP board. It published a short list of four. Laird was not on that short list although Harland and Wolff was. I have no wish to attack Harland and Wolff, but why, when Laird's tender was better than Harland and Wolff's on delivery time and price, and when BP staff judged that Laird's technical competence for that order was greater than Harland and Wolff's, Harland and Wolff was on the short list and Laird was not?
I want to ask the Minister three questions. It appears to some in Birkenhead that pressure was applied to the BP board. The Minister shakes his head and answers the first question, but I hope that be will put that on the record. If that is so, did he apply that pressure? Secondly, if he did not, did any officials in his Department? If not, does he he know of anyone in British Shipbuilders who applied pressure to the BP board to take Laird off the short list?
From my town, Birkenhead, it looks as though some people in Government or elsewhere are trying to rubbish our yard. I use the word ' rubbish". It is used not just by those in the yard, but by people who represent the area around the yard. That is what appears to be going on. I shall be grateful if the Minister will answer those three points.
It is important for the Government to know about local opinion. Two weeks ago the county council called a meeting of industrialists, trade unionists, church people, ship workers, and management—people interested in the future of Cammell Laird. The view of that meeting—and there was no disagreement, whether from the CBI or leading Conservatives from the Wirrall—was that the Goverment can save Cammell Laird if they wish to do so. The orders are there. If anything happens to Cammell Laird, there will be agreement across parties and interests in our area that it has been the Government's wish to close the yard.
I shall not take up mo t time in the debate, because there are other yards which are threatened with potential closure. I shall be grateful if the Minister will answer the three specific points that I have put to him in the debate.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I wish to make some points about Vosper Thornycroft and to refute utterly the attack made by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on the principle of privatisation of the warship yards. What my hon. Friend the Minister said about the attitude of the work force in Vosper Thornycroft is correct. The work force think that they have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by privatisation, and that is why I support the policy.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: rose—

Mr. Chope: I will not give way to the hon. Member because I have only a short point to make and I want to be brief.
The work force are enthusiastic about privatisation, but will the Minister say what is to happen about the order for the type 22 frigates, which has been outstanding for the Ministry of Defence for many months now? Much anxiety is being caused in Vosper Thornycroft and in other yards about the outcome. The longer the decision is delayed, the less likely there is to be work that might otherwise be available.
The work force at Vosper Thornycroft, as my hon. Friend has said, have not yet signed the productivity deal. I do not think that it is because of any unfair attitude on their part; they are very concerned that for years they have contributed to the profits of British Shipbuilders and they are worried about whether the productivity deal is in their best interests. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend can say something firm this evening to let the work force know whether the future and the outcome of the tendering for the type 22 frigates is likely to depend upon their signing the productivity deal, or whether it will be dealt with independently. Obviously, that is a very relevant consideration for the work force in that yard.
I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend can say what the time scale is for the privatisation of the warship yards, because the delay is causing much uncertainty among the work force. It is essential that there shold be an improvement in the morale of the people who work for British Shipbuilders.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Some months ago the Minister, in a written reply to me, when I had asked him what the Government would do to put right the deficit on trade and manufactured goods, said that he was not going to do anything about it because we enjoyed a surplus in oil and invisible earnings. I have repeated that reply on several occasions, and audiences have been genuinely shocked at the implications behind it.
The relevance to this debate is that as a trading nation, as has already been said, it is vital that we maintain a strong maritime capability and a strong merchant fleet. It is clear that we are not doing that; in fact, the tonnage and the number of ships are falling drastically. Even leaving out commercial reasons, there is known to be concern within NATO at the strategic implications that a country such as ours cannot actually call on merchant marine backing in any kind of emergency. As has been said before in this House, it is doubtful whether we could mount a task force to the Falklands now because of the decline in our merchant fleet.
If we are to have a merchant fleet, we should have a capability to build that fleet. We should be able to secure orders for our own domestic yards.
I do not think that there is anyone in the House who does not recognise that, regardless of the political complexion of the Government, there are problems in British Shipbuilders that need to be addressed, but it is clear that the Government are addressing them in a one-sided way. They are not yet producing a clear indication of how the corporation is to develop in a constructive way. Indeed, one sometimes gets the feeling that the Government regard these traditional basic industries as some kind of obsolescent, decaying Victorian relic that should just be allowed to fade away or to be stamped out as soon as possible. There is no way in which we can keep a balanced economy and our position as a trading nation if we do not maintain those industries.
I acknowledge that British Shipbuilders needs to be more competitive. It needs stronger management than has been demonstrated to date, and I hope that something is being done to achieve that. British Shipbuilders certainly needs to go for modern and flexible working methods, but I suggest the provision of better pay and conditions as part

of the deal to secure flexible working. The Minister must acknowledge—he certainly has advocated this to the House — the merits of what has happened in Scott Lithgow. One of the consequences of privatisation has been a dramatic increase in rates of pay within that yard — not after the orders have been completed and the profit has been made but to ensure the completion of those orders and to motivate a work force for which, whatever the Minister may say now, he and his colleagues showed little respect when the problems faced Scott Lithgow. Clearly, the new management put more value on those workers than the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues did at the time of the crisis.
I should have thought that we are moving towards a position where the Government in their purest monetarism occasionally say, "If you cannot compete today, you must accept closure", without seeming to recognise that our competitors are operating on the basis of anything other than free market economics.
I refer to the Japanese, although, to some extent, they have been overtaken. Sometimes Conservative Members hold up the Japanese example as the shining light with which Britain must deal, and certainly we must compete with them. If anyone can suggest to me that the Japanese economy is run on free market, free enterprise economics, he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. I suggest that the best description of the Japanese method of running the economy is planned capitalism. That is something that the Japanese have been able to develop as a unique philosophy which has been very successful for them. The net result is that the Japanese have put investment into and commitment behind, their industry and have ensured that they have a specialist capability. We in Britain are in danger of losing such a capability.
A small yard in Aberdeen, Hall Russell, has been relatively successful and has secured orders. It will need more orders, but it needs investment and more technology as well. That yard has submitted applications to British Shipbuilders for a new fabrication facility and for investment in new technology and equipment. I hope that that investment will be forthcoming, because too often when the Minister has cited the figures of losses suffered by British Shipbuilders they have simply been losses, and he has masqueraded them as though they were investment. In many areas, investment has not been forthcoming. The problem of British Shipbuilders is that it has been overtaken and overwhelmed by losses in the present recession and has been unable to carry out a level of investment that will enable it to compete and to achieve the 75 per cent. success rate that the Minister told us is essential if the corporation is to survive.
I shall address myself to the issue of selling off the yards that are building ships for the military and navy sector. It is somewhat immoral to sell off yards that will thereafter be fundamentally dependant on Government contracts for goods which are built to a high specification and that effectively will be dependent for their profits on the taxpayer.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore in favour of nationalising all defence contractors?

Mr. Bruce: I am certainly not in favour of nationalising all defence contractors. I am against


denationalising yards in the British shipbuilding sector when that sector needs the underpinning that those yards can provide.

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is "immoral" for people to make profits out of contracts placed by the Government.

Mr. Bruce: I said that it was almost immoral to sell off yards at a time when British shipbuilders is fighting for its survival. That action would undermine its technical capability and its ability to obtain orders and to secure revenue. That revenue is essential to the industry's future. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is true. He is weakening British Shipbuilders and the shipbuilding industry by pursuing the matter.
Moreover, he is sidetracking management into having to cope with privatisation when it already has more than enough on its plate.

Mr. Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman think it fair that the people now working in the warship yards should have their pay increases held back because they have to subsidise the loss-making yards?

Mr. Bruce: I can well understand why workers in the yard in the hon. Gentleman's constituency want privatisation. As I have said, that yard will get Government contracts, so it will be secure. The workers there are trying to look after themselves, and I do not blame them for doing so in the middle of a recession, but the national shipbuilding interest requires broader vision than that.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is there actually enough in the domestic ordering programme for the Ministry of Defence to provide work for all the yards now building warships? Are Conservative Members' constituents entirely justified in their rejoicing?

Mr. Bruce: No doubt the Minister will tell us that Governments all over the world are queuing up to place orders with British yards, but I am not so confident. I will believe that when I see it.
The Government have not yet produced a coherent plan for the industry. They continue to be obsessed with ideological considerations and they are not doing enough to face the need for a proper maritime policy and a proper shipbuilding capability to meet our requirements as a trading nation. Therefore, although we shall support the order we regard it merely as an interim measure until we can get the industry into better shape. We certainly have no confidence that the Government's strategy is moving in that direction.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate, so I shall be brief. The Minister's statement today must be one of the weakest that he has ever made from the Dispatch Box and his performance showed his real fear. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) said that the Minister would be a great deal less confident when the financial strategy—not the corporate plan—was finally exposed, and the Minister was extremely unconfident today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said, we shall not vote against the order. But that does not mean that we support the Minister. Hon.

Members on this side including the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), are conscious of our responsibility to the shipbuilding industry. We must make it clear that we are not supporting a Minister who does not even know what the industry is about but has to have his PPS running up and down bringing hill bits of information so as to make things look a bit baler when he sums up the debate.
Meanwhile, what is happening with our competitors? If the Minister had studied Lloyd's List before coming to the debate he would know that the Japanese had seen the need to treble Government aid to shipbuilding. Can the Minister say that aid to British Shipbuilders has trebled during his period of responsibility? All he can say is that he has decided once again to extend the borrowing limits. He is not tackling the problems that Opposition Members have to cope with, as is shown by the very small number of Conservative Member; seeking to take part in the debate and to argue for their areas. They know that the Government are not concerned about an industry which is absolutely basic for an island nation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said that the National Union of Seamen and my own union, AUEW, TASS, had produced several statements on shipbuilding. The Minister should read the most recent one and take account of the arguments in it. If he did so, he wold accept one or two of the things that we have been saying from Opposition Benches for many years about the need to have a national maritime policy and a Cabinet committee concerned with a basic industry involving not only shipping but various aspects of it, such as the marine engineering industry. Not just AUEW, TASS and the NUS are saying that. Recently a committee formed by the Institute of Marine Engineers—hardly people who one would expect to vote La 3our locally and nationally—came out with its own ideas for the shipping industry, which is vital to this country. I wonder why the Minister did not refer to the committee's plan. I am sure that he has read it. He has received a copy. I am sure that he is aware of the contents—

Mr. William McKelvey: He is not.

Mr. Ross: A quick read of Lloyd's List of the past few weeks would explain that that committee is saying the same as Opposition Members. There is a need for a maritime policy and a corporate policy for shipbuilding. There is a need for the industry to understand that, as an island nation, we require an integrated shipping industry. We require shipowners to order ships from British yards. We require those ships to be powered by British engines. However, what we have heard from the Minister is a weak argument about why the Government should not address themselves to those problems. The Minister failed to convince the Opposition that he understands that this is an island, that we need ships and a shipping industry and that those ships, if we are to compete, have to be built in British yards—

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: No. The hon. Gentleman should understand that Opposition Members have spent some time in the Chamber hoping to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye. With great respect to the hon. Ge itleman, my hon. Friends have constituency points to make once I have finished.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will address himself to some of the points made by the Institute of Marine Engineers.
Recently my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I travelled to Aberdeen to meet the offshore oil trade unions. We discussed the serious concern in the offshore oil industry. If the Minister was concerned about British Shipbuilders, he could promote the concept of our supply vessels supporting the oil industry. The Minister must know that the supply vessels that are being used by the companies that have won the orders to supply the oil rigs are not suitable for that industry. If our vessels had been used, that would have saved the three yards that the Minister mentioned. He quickly passed over that and said that he was disturbed that they had to be closed down. Goole would have been saved if it had built the supply vessels that are urgently required to properly service to offshore industry.
This is a mini debate on the way towards the day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East said when we shall discuss the financial strategy that is an adaptation of the corporate plan that British Shipbuilders and the Government produced for the industry over several years. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is clear that his points will further highlight the Government's determination not even to support our oil industry. Scott Lithgow failed because the Government did not understand that the new technology involved in building rigs such as Scott Lithgow were asked to build did not exist in this country, and that that expertise would have to be learnt. The Government were determined to exploit our oil as quickly as possible. They bought the necessary technology from the Americans and we have lost out in terms of jobs and of technology that we could have exported. That is one of the reasons why Scott Lithgow had difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will be able to explain that to the House if, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he catches your eye.

Mr. Frank Field: We have heard about the technological problems of producing rigs. The rig that Cammell Laird built has been in operation now since Easter, and only six hours have been lost. Technical problems are not the whole picture.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is right.
There were only two yards. We have lost one yard and we may be well on the way to losing the other. The Minister has said nothing to convince us that the Government are determined to ensure that we shall have yards that are capable of exploiting the expertise that we have gained in the North Sea.
Many of my hon. Friends hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This mini-debate takes us closer to the day when the Minister will admit that he does not have a corporate plan, that he does not know what the industry needs and that he does not understand the industry or know how to handle it. The Minister tried, in his speech, to suggest that the Government are concerned about British Shipbuilders. In fact, the Government do not understand what shipbuilding is. They have no concept of the people who work in shipbuilding and they are not determined to fight aggressively to ensure that British shipbuilding succeeds.

Mr. Bob Clay: I want to refer briefly to the proposed closure of British Shipbuilders (Engineering and Technical Services) Ltd. in my constituency. It angers and saddens me that the Minister referred to the engineering reorganisation—the savaging of marine engineering in British Shipbuilders—without paying any regard to the fact that if the reorganisation goes through and the closure of BS(ETS) goes ahead, there will be an end to marine engineering on the Wear—an end to a standard of marine engineering recognised around the world for decades, and to a historic tradition. It is a sympton of the Government's cavalier and callous attitude to the industry that the Minister, in his statement, did not even recognise that fact.
BS(ETS) has achieved productivity on a scale that hon. Members have told us will be the salvation of the industry. Before the national enabling agreement, the new crankshaft facilities and component facilities had an agreement on inter-flexibility that surpassed what had been asked for in that enabling agreement. The reward is to be closure.
BS(ETS) was told to diversify. It is working flat out. There is overtime, and there has been no short-time working since 1979. It has diversified into general engineering, power stations and orders from ICI as well as the trade in marine engineering spares. The reward is to be closure.
The fate of BS(ETS) is a microcosm of the fate of the industry. Only 206 jobs are involved, but Sunderland, with its high unemployment rate, cannot afford to lose a single job. This is a demonstration in miniature of the Government's attitude to the whole of the shipbuilding industry.
We should be investing money to develop a new marine engine. That is what the crankshaft facility was installed for, less than one year ago. It is incredible that, when we talk of borrowing limits and the amount of money that is being put into BS, £4·5 million was invested less than 12 months ago and the facility is now to be mothballed because of the insane policies that BS is carrying out at the Government's behest. It would cost even more to transfer the facilities at BS (ETS) as cost would be incurred by the transfer and the learning curve in a new location.
This policy of destruction of marine engineering reflects the general destruction of shipbuilding. That is not just the opinion of Opposition Members. It is worth putting on record the opinion of Sir Robert Atkinson, the former chairman of BS. Last week he told Newcastle's The Journal:
The Government states its policy is to support and ensure the viability of the shipbuilding industry and yet there has been no action taken so far to indicate that they intend to fulfil that expression.
They talk about productivity and the importance of it and practically remove the means by which productivity can be achieved.
Talking of the closure of BS(ETS) in Sunderland he said:
When they start to kill a project like that, they will start to kill British shipbuilding.
The only thing that he got wrong was that they have not started; but they are well on their way. He concluded:
I am shocked, sad and broken-hearted that a fine facility like this and all the thought, investment and national skill that has gone into it is going to be wasted. It just makes my heart bleed.


Those are the words of the chairman of less than one year ago. Such comments are an extraordinary indictment of the Government.
Finally, I should like to mention the attacks that the Secretary of State and, tonight, the Minister of State have made on my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and on me in regard to what we have said about the possible closure of Austin and Pickersgill. I bitterly resent those attacks, which imply that, by raising the possibility of closure, hon. Members are scaring away orders. Orders are not achieved because of the Government's policy and the lack of financial support. When Graham Day went to meet Mr. Ohlendorf last week about the apparently possible order for Austin and Pickersgill, he said that there is a big price gap. I do not imagine that the Germans told him that they were worried whether the yard would stay open. I imagine that they wanted to talk about the price gap and what the Government were prepared to do about it. It is no good saying that we are not talking about closure. It is like the captain, standing on the deck of a manifestly sinking ship, saying, "It is not sinking because we are not talking about it sinking."
Unless it gets orders, that yard will go under. As the Minister knows, it is running out of work. Publicly being worried has no bearing on that. The Minister should be concerned not with attacking hon. Members who are worried, but with ensuring that BS is able to propose a financial package to secure immediately the orders that are available to the yard.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: As I am conscious of the lack of time, I shall make five concise points.
First, the Minister, when outlining the problems of the world market, mistook my nodding for assent. He then said that I and others who challenged him on merchant shipbuilding orders were somehow preventing them from coming to Britain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) said. I am not asking the Minister to reveal in detail what subsidy the Government are prepared to offer a potential major merchant shipbuilding customer. I am asking him to assure the House that the subsidy that Government are prepared to give to ensure that Britain gets another major merchant shipbuilding order will be sufficient to breach the cost price gap between western Europe and the subsidised markets of Japan and South Korea. There is a price gap of about 33·3 per cent. and I trust that the gap will be bridged when the next major shipbuilding order is received by BS. The Minister has assured us that that order is destined for Austin and Pickersgill Ltd., but there is some disbelief about that.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that, in line with what I understand to be BS's corporate plan, no closure of a major shipbuilding yard is contemplated by BS or the Minister. I am fairly certain that it is not contemplated by BS, but I am not so sure about the Minister, and that is rather more germane.
Thirdly, I ask the Minister to make a statement on the future of warship yards. Graham Day has said that he plans to privatise three of the yards but on the same day, 27 May, in a written answer to a question from me, the Minister said that there were no such plans. It should be noted that Graham Day said that he was taking on bankers and

lawyers to advise him on the privatisation. Whatever the Minister's plans for the industry, will he give me an assurance that there is some future for Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd.?
Fourthly and fifthly, will he address himself to the determination of the Japanese to dominate every market sector in the world economy, including those that are making short-term losses? Finally, if he attempts to close a major yard in Tyne and Wear, the entire community will fight him all the way.

Dr. Norman A. Codman: I promise that my contribution will be the briefest of all those made in the debate. Almost everyone who has contributed to the debate has mentioned Scott Lithgow. Perhaps the Minister will regard this as gratuitous advice, but Scott Lithgow is contained entirely within my constituency. That being so, I am closer to the company than any other Member. Morale is high in the yard and, without wishing to sound condescending, with some assistance from he Minister I have received assurances from the new owners on recruitment and selection from the local community, training, strategic decision making and product range. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is on the Government Front Bench because I wish him to hear me express the hope that the product range will be widened somewhat to include the refit of submarines.
I ask the Minister two questions, one of which he might consider to be academic. Frirst, has the Touche Ross report been consigned to the archives? Secondly, what assistance to marine engineering does he envisage from the intervention fund?

Mr. Norman Lamont: In the four minutes that are left to me to reply to the debase I wish, first, to thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for saying that morale at Scott Lithgow is high. I am grateful for the fact that he takes a positive attitude to its transfer to the private sector. It was unfortunate that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, responded so strongly to the transfer. There is no point in repeatedly considering who is at fault. I do not accept that the Government and British Shipbuilders have not been patient. About £50 million are likely to be lost on the rig order. Bygones must be bygones. The important thing is that there is now a new future, which the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow confirmed.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked me three specific questions, the answers to all of which are no. I think that they are no and not yes, but they are the answers that he wanted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) asked me to say something about the Type 22 frigate orders. I cannot tell him what the timetable is. It will not be long delayed, but it is a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence. My hon. Friend also asked about the productivity deal, and whether it would endanger the chances of Vosper Thornycroft winning the order. If the productivity deal is not signed, it is less likely that the yard will win the order. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming my impression from my visit there that many people are in favour of privatisation because they


think that they will earn higher wages in the private sector when they operate commercially on their own and when the large loss-making business of British Shipbuilders is not incumbent on them.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that that was selfish. He said that those people were in favour of privatisation only because they would get higher wages, but when he talked about Scott Lithgow he rebuked BS for not having paid the wages that Scott Lithgow is now able to pay in the private sector. That shows the usual Social Democratic party attempt to have all things all ways.
I am delighted to hear that I feature in the rotary club speech of the hon. Member for Gordon, but he went all over the shop from monetarism to planned capitalism in Japan. It is all very well to talk about a maritime policy and a shipbuilding policy, but he did not attempt to define what they were. He has the usual Social Democratic party belief that if one finds a phrase, one finds a policy. That is as far as that party goes.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) asked a serious question about the Pallion engine facility. I appreciate the feelings of his constituents and of those in the area about the decision, which was not made by the Government, but which was a commercial decision by BS. He must know that the original investment decision was made on the assumptions of a far higher throughput of merchant shipbuilding orders and engine orders than has unfortunately been the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

Industrial Technologies

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8018/83 on a Research Action Programme on Industrial Technologies and the supplementary explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry dated 14 May 1984; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that Community research in this area should be beneficial in terms of policy objectives of the Community and the United Kingdom.
The debate is held on the recommendation of the Select Committee on European Legislation which considered the proposal twice in 1983 but considered that it did not merit debate at that time. Since then there has been a further revision of the proposal based on consultation with member states and industry. The proposal will be considered by the Research Council in Luxembourg on Friday 29 June. The Government are seeking the views of the House so that they may be taken fully into account when the Council considers the proposal.
I should like to begin by saying a few words about the content of the proposal which is the subject of the supplementary memorandum submitted by my Department. The proposal is for a four-year research and development programme covering two areas: basic technological research and the applications of new technologies. Since the original proposal was submitted to the Council, those two programmes have been merged into one programme designated basic research in industrial technologies for Europe—or more simply, the BRITE programme. BRITE forms part of a wider based research action programme on industrial technologies which includes some existing research programmes which have already been considered by the House. The research action programme is itself part of the Community's framework programme—which indicates broad objectives for Community research and development programmes and the balance between them. The framework programme has also been considered previously by the House. Tonight therefore, on the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee, the Government are seeking the views of the House on the BRITE proposal in particular which is on page 32 onwards in the proposal document.
The central objective of the BRITE programme is to assist in the creation of a significant and advanced techological base upon which European industry can draw. More specifically, the programme will bring together complementary research abilities from different sectors of the Community to work on high priority technical areas. Few would disagree, I think, that industrial competitiveness in the Community over the next decade and beyond will greatly depend on advances being made in a number of technical areas.
The BRITE proposal contains two sub-programmes. The first is concerned with pre-competitive research and development in new materials and technologies and includes a wide range of interrelated themes: reliability, wear and deterioration, laser technology, joining techniques, new testing methods, CAD-CAM—computer-aided design and manufacture—polymers and other new materials, membrane science, catalysis and others. The second sub-programme is concerned with research and development in new production technologies


for products made from flexible materials and includes automated handling, joining of flexible materials, automated manufacture and so on. This sub-programme has been broadened, since the original proposal was submitted, to include flexible materials in general and not just the clothing industry. The technology developed will have wide applications across a spectrum of industrial sectors. The programme should provide benefits for industries such as motor vehicles, chemicals, shipbuilding, clothing, construction, machine tools, electrical equipment, furniture and consumer durables.
It is worth noting that the industrial sectors that I have mentioned are estimated to employ over 25 million people in the Community. In the United Kingdom alone I estimate that these same sectors employ more than 3 million people.
I believe that the Scrutiny Committee has done the House a great service, because it is about time that the House examined the thesis that our basic existing industries are also potentially, if not already, becoming high technology industries.
I should have loved the opportunity on another occasion to debate some of Toffler's theses that somehow the smokestack industries—he calls them that, although I believe it is a misnomer—are beyond redemption. I reject that. I believe that, instead of talking about "sunrise" and "sunset" industries, we should start talking about the "sunshine" industries—those established industries which are already trading profitably and wish to remain so by the application of new ideas and intellect, by adding value and by fighting back in the international markets by using the brain power that we find in western Europe.
I refuse to believe that there is any such thing, or need ever be any such thing, as a "sunset" industry. I have recently visited "Mach 84", the machine tool exhibition in Birmingham, and I can see that that industry employs the greatest amount of intellect in adding value to its products and in producing some magnificent facilities. Incidentally, many British companies have learnt the lesson that computer-numerically controlled lathes, flexible manufacturing systems and robotics are for them.
I think that it is important for hon. Members to be aware of the way the technical areas in the proposal were arrived at. They were not arrived at simply by Commission officials sitting in Brussels, nor for that matter by officials of my own Department. They are the result of extensive consultation with industry. Last year, the Commission sought from industry views on what areas of research and development it considered particularly important. More than 700 individual items were put forward, and the list of nine technical themes emerged from this process. The Government applaud the Commission for this practical approach to assessing needs.
The proposal seeks 170 million ecu for a four-year programme—that is, about £106 million—of which 20 per cent. would be devoted to the second sub-programme concerned with flexible materials. It is proposed that the programme will be implemented largely by means of cost-shared research contracts placed with companies and research organisations in the member states.
Taking into account the financial contributions from national sources, a total Community programme of some £200 million would result. Where there are existing national activities in several member states, it is proposed that there should be concerted action—that is, the Community will not share in the costs of the research but

may make a contribution to the cost of meetings, workshops and so on to ensure co-ordination of the work. The Government strongly support the concerted action approach in selected areas.
Three important criteria would be applied in implementing the programme. First, the research must be able to lead specifically to technological breakthroughs relating to industrial productivity, product reliability, originality of design or ocher factors which are a key to greater competitiveness. Secondly, the research must be of a pre-competitive nature, and here a balance will have to be struck between protecting the rights of particular research teams and spreading the results to European industry as a whole. Thirdly, the proposals must involve at least one industrial company and must also involve organisations in more than one member state so that the programme will have an authentic European dimension.
The Government take a generally favourable view of programmes of this nature, subject to a broader qualification, to which I w ill return in a moment. En terms of technical content and appropriateness for action at Community level, I consider that the programme could offer benefits for United Kingdom industry. The programme would complement the support provided for British industry by my Department under the support for innovation scheme.
There is no doubt that European industry needs a strong base to remain competitive. It needs a big enough market to cover the costs of research and development. It needs the latest industrial technology so that it can compete on equal terms with world leaders such as the United States and Japan.
In the west midlands I have been able to see at first hand how the timely application of new technology is critical to competitiveness. In the United Kingdom the Government are encouraging industry in these developments. BRITE is designed to link up firms, universities and research institutions across national frontiers. The approach has an underlying prime necessity—to get research results out of the laboratories and into the factories.
The major feature of BRITE in the context of European programmes is that it is led by industry and industrial objectives. It aims to stimulate industry to take new initiatives and allows firm; to make marriages with other firms, research institutions and universities of their choice. There is scope for flexibility, in that firms can select partners before approaching the Commission for support.
The appropriateness of the approach is borne out think, by the very large numbers of expressions of interest in the programme, some 3,000 in the Community as a whole and more than 750 in the United Kingdom—more than half from industry. If the programme is adopted, British industry would be expected to benefit significantly.
In considering the proposal, we must of course get a balance between what is appropriate to support at Community level as opposed to nationally or by industry itself. It is clear that the strict budgetary discipline will have to continue to be applied to all areas of Community activity, including research and development. For this reason the Research Council will be considering on Friday the overall priorities for Community research and development, the resources which are likely to be available in future years, and how the allocation of these resources should be handled. I shall be attending this meeting for the Government.
The Commission has a portfolio of proposed programmes which it wishes to have adopted and it hopes to start these programmes in 1984–85. This portfolio of programmes—of which BRITE is one—serves to flesh out the framework for community research and development which was agreed in outline by the Council of Ministers last year. The meeting on Friday will consider the relative priorities of the proposals of which BRITE is one. This would colour subsequent decisions on allocation of resources to individual programmes. This is background against which the BRITE proposal will be considered at the Research Council on Friday.
I again commend the Scrutiny Committee's decision to bring this report forward, and I welcome this opportunity to take a sounding of hon. Members' views on the sunrise industries.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The House appreciates that, as the Under-Secretary is speaking only the day after the resolution of the budgetary problems of the Community, he is not able to tell hon. Members of the scale of the resources that may become available or the priority of the programme within the additional work that the Community will be able to undertake out of the increased own resources. Nevertheless, I hope that he, or his colleagues, will take the message to the Research Council on Friday that the House is in favour of increased spending on a wide range of industries that are not included in the currently fashionable, so-called advanced technological industries, which the Commission limits to information technology and bio-technology.
We need to put the proposals into scale. We are talking of a 170 million ecu programme over four years, which is about £25 million per annum in the United Kingdom. That must be compared with our science budget of £560 million a year and our support for industrial development of £330 million, and, therefore, a science and technology budget of £890 million a year. The £25 million a year will be spent on the basic technologies that, in the Under-Secretary's words, will give an advanced industrial base on which the Community can draw. Given the scale, that claim is absurd.
The hon. Gentleman should include in his visiting the research departments of some of those industries for which he is directly responsible. I invite him to go to the central research laboratories of the British Steel Corporation. He will see there that 0·5 per cent. of BSC's sales is being spent on research. All of it is well spent and thoroughly justifiable, but that is a pathetically inadequate basis on which to build the future of the steel industry. That is the programme for which the Under-Secretary and his colleagues are directly responsible.
I shall now return to science and technology policy after an excursion into the economic policy of the past few years. Most Ministers and officials who are responsible for science and technology have not looked at the statistics that were produced 20 years ago, in our last rounds of serious discussions of science policy, and that have still not greatly changed. I do not mean merely the civil as against military research and development and the volume of activity concerned, but what happens in particular industries and activities within industries.
For example, agricultural research has brought about immense increases in productivity. However, we are now cutting back support for such research, on the grounds that the mismanagement of resources is producing agricultural surpluses. We have managed to produce huge increases in pig production and potato yields from relatively straightforward research that does not even enter into the advanced scientific research with which the research councils think that they should be concerned. It comes from the general run of Government expenditure. We find in that the total misallocation of resources by a Government who are not pursuing a science policy at all.
I welcome the remark of the Under-Secretary, that we should get rid of the idea of smokestack industries, but I refer him to the comments of his own Department in the Government's Expenditure Plans, Cmnd. 8789. In page 18, paragraph 12, under "Scientific and technological assistance", it says:
Support for industrial research and development … is increasingly aimed at the new technologies including information technology.
By all means let us have increased research and development expenditure on the advanced technologies, but, when they are getting such a disproportionate share already, the rates of growth in the basic technologies that we are discussing in the programme should be much faster.
I observe nothing in the Commission document or in what the Under-Secretary said that gives any indication that the Commission or the Government are yet thinking on the right scale, or have the right approach. It needs to be related to the broad background of industrial policy and, behind that, economic policy. It needs to extend into the areas of education and academic research. In this country and, I believe, in the rest of Europe, there is a readiness to get down to the basic technological research, a readiness to listen and a readiness to alter the old power structures in firms and industries so that the new ideas can surface.
I want to pose some doubts and questions about the programme. I deal, first, with the mode of operation. To alter these pitifully small resources on the basis of inviting declarations of interest and tenders is to cause the research associations, firms, university departments and so on an immense amount of wasted work in over-application for inadequate funds. I understand that ESPRIT has had 450 applications already this year. Only a tiny proportion of those will be short-listed, and an even smaller proportion stand any chance of support. Is the Commission justified in provoking that vast bureaucratic effort by industry, universities and others chasing a few pennies that most of them will not even see?
Secondly, the limitation to less than 50 per cent. of the cost in the basic technological research area cuts out a great deal of the most important work. By definition, the work that is pre-competitive is not worth undertaking by the small or medium size enterprise about which the Commission talks. These are contradictory ambitions—the limitation to less than 50 per cent. and the wish to involve small and medium size firms.
I deal next with the problems of dissemination of results. Heavens above, it is difficult enough to disseminate the results from the "mud on the boots" sort of research organisation such as the Production Engineering Research Association to engineering firms in the midlands. It makes one despair of the problems that the Commission would face in disseminating from Brussels or


from laboratories in one country to firms in other countries. The methods of dissemination need to be more closesly linked with the national efforts that are being made. I do not see the declaration of intent to work through national channels by any means as evidence that the problems have been thought through.
Technological research cannot be isolated from the industrial and economic strategy of which it is a part. Industrialists, especially those to whom I talk in the pharmaceutical or electronics industries, think that they are on to a good thing and that they will preside over vast and increasing levels of output while employing fewer people. I find myself asking them how the wealth that they produce will be spent. Will it all be in the form of profit or a return on capital? If the extra wealth is reflected in wages, those industries will have far higher wages than other industries. Those industrialists do not realise that if productivity in electronics is increased hugely and there is only limited demand, the share of gross national product will fall. If, in the extreme case, there is an infinite growth in productivity in electronics and information technology, the contribution to GNP may become minute.
That is no reason for not putting great effort into information technology. If we are concerned with the well-being of society and its longer-term economic well-being, there is an overwhelming argument for pursuing a more balanced distribution of research effort. One should apply the natural criterion that the research spend per man involved in the different industries should be roughly comparable. That would have to be qualified, but it would get us thinking in a direction that at present we do not even begin to grasp.
Even within this pathetic little programme, textiles are getting 20 per cent. although they employ only 5 per cent. of those in manufacturing industry. I welcome the money that that sector is getting and I am sure that it is fully justified, but I am also sure that the other 95 per cent. of the work force in manufacturing industry deserves much stronger support in research and development than it is getting even from this programme.
I wish the Government well at the Research Council meeting. I hope that they will attend, resolved to give this programme high priority, but only as a bait with which to catch a very much larger fish, in moving the research and development efforts of both the Government and the Community in the direction in which they are just beginning to move.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), my hon. Friend the Minister and I all share a profound interest in this subject. However, I am not sure whether those hon. Members share my sense of bewilderment over the strange sense of priorities that the House sometimes exhibits. Today, we have spent the best part of eight hours debating, in essence, whether or not the deposit of a candidate in a general election should be increased to £1,000. I concede that that is an important topic. However, at a late hour, when the Press Gallery and the Strangers Gallery are empty, and when very few hon. Members are in the Chamber, we are debating the industrial future of western Europe. It is extraordinary that this debate should be given one and a half hours of our time when compared with the time allocated to the previous debate and to many other subjects. It is singularly depressing.
When replying at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed her profound conviction that the application of new technology lay at the heart of this country's future and survival and that of our friends in the Community. There can be no doubt about that. I shall refer in a moment to six quite extraordinary examples that support that. However, first I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, and reinforce it. He spoke about the scale of research with which we are endeavouring to compete.
Ten days ago the Select Committee on Energy had the privilege of visiting Matsushita outside Tokyo to look specifically at the energy research which that one private firm in Japan was undertaking. We looked at many things which will not interest the House this evening, but: one point will. The total number of employees of that one organisation working entirely on research and development is now 20,000. Of that 20,000, 5,400 are working on energy research and development alone. I suggest that hon. Members need no assistance from me to quantify those figures either in terms of yen, ecu, dollar or other index of significance.
To illustrate the point from another source, of which my hon. Friend the Minister will be only too well aware, this morning I read a document published by his Department describing the factory in Japan which manufactures the Brother electronic typewriter. That had the interesting information that one small unit employing 30 employees had a total output of £60 million per annum, value added £2 million per employee. Those are the facts and factors which we just seem to ignore. We do not, as I understand it, have the capacity to rise to the challenge which this is presenting to Governm nits and to nations in western Europe.
May I be more specific and refer to some of the extraordinary interesting items in the document? The first is the definition of the objective of the programme.
Paragraph 104 says:
The objective … is … to stimulate cooperative basic technological research on a scale sufficient to impact European industrial competitiveness.''
That is the important phrase. I wonder what that scale is today. I wonder how many hon. Members realise the extent of the challenge which is coming and the extent of the changes in policy and in industrial structure and in the allocation of resources between research and development and production which is necessary to produce something
on a scale sufficient to impact European industrial competitiveness.
The document goes on to say:
This objective must be kept in mind and dominate decision-taking throughout all stages of the programme.
I heartily agree. It must be kept in mind and dominate decision making. But it is unlikely to achieve the widespread attention and concern it deserves if we debate it for a matter of minutes late at night when all have gone home and the House and the country are largely unconcerned.
Paragraph 99 says:
The funding estimated to be needed for the various sub-areas is the minimum considered necessary to raise the level of research throughout the Community—
again, this is the important question—
to the point where it is above sub-critical and consequently will make a useful and significant impact on the technologies concerned.


Now let us look at some of the specific cases. Out of the nine areas which are discussed, I want to refer to about six. The first is "Laser technology applications, together with other new methods of metal shaping and forming". The document points out:
The potential applications of power lasers in mechanical manufacturing are numerous and far from being fully explored or exploited in Europe … In contrast, MITI in Japan already has a 7 year programme under way in the framework of a project for flexible manufacturing systems.
It concludes, rightly:
it is crucial that Europe exert itself in this field.
What does "exert" mean in that context?
I move on to the next matter, "Joining techniques". The report says:
Another area needing more R &amp; D effort concerns the further development of low cost automated welding techniques making use of microprocessors, which should lead both to higher productivity and to a constant higher product quality. This research includes the development of sensors and adaptive control systems. In Japan much attention is being paid to these developments.
On electron beam welding it says:
Japan is taking the lead in applications".
Again, what is our reaction? Is it sufficient? The problem in this whole reaction area is of the order of 10 million to 20 million ECUs, and I cannot help endorsing what the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said about the scale and sufficiency of such a response.

Dr. Bray: I think the scale of the British effort is nearer to £5 million a year, not £25 million, which must be the figure for the whole Community.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member is justified in making that intervention; it merely enlarges and endorses a concern which I think is widely felt on both sides of the House.
The next heading is "CAD/CAM and Mathematical Models", a highly significant area of new technology. This is where the nuts and bolts of the advance, to use an old-fashioned phrase, is taking place. If we get this right we shall get many of the other things right; if we get this wrong we shall be perpetually behind. Once again, the report says:
CAD and CAM"—
computer aided design and computer aided manufacture—
have been the subject of a great deal of work throughout the Member States of the Community but there has been so much R &amp; D in the US and Japan supported by governmental agencies that Europe is now in general well behind the best world practice.
What a solemn comment on the industrial policies that we have been following for decades under successive Governments. What a solemn comment on the state in which we now find ourselves—and not only in the United Kingdom.
The next heading is "Polymers, Composites and other new materials". Here again the report is devastating:
While the Commission has been strongly advised that the future of Community industry will depend significantly on its ability to produce polymers having improved special technological properties … that ability is facing a dual threat.
Need I suggest where that threat is coming from?
On the one hand, high quality polymers produced in the US and Japan are already on the market, meaning that a technology lag already exists and must first be compensated.
That is another devastating conclusion.
Then there is a reference to

Composites, which are multiphase materials combining the essential properties and advantages of several 'traditional' materials".
Once again we find that
Considerable foreign research is already going on in the fields of macromolecular chemistry, polymers and composite materials. In the US it is taking place in the framework of a University/Industry Cooperative Research Centre Programme … In Japan, MITI is supporting polymer and composite materials research in the framework of its 'Research and Development Project of Basic Technology for the Future Industries'.
The next heading is "Membrane Science and Technology". The report says that
the technology necessary to transpose the science into practical industrial applications is complex and requires the type of large-scale and co-ordinated work effort that has not yet been successfully created in Europe.
Where has it been successfully created? The report refers to
developments holding the promise of numerous applications in industry and medicine
and says that
the technological development and commercialisation of these efforts have largely been centred in the US and more recently in Japan due to these countries' commitment to R &amp; D on this topic".
Then comes the point that I should like to make on this aspect:
10 per cent. of total Japanese funds for the MITI programme on basic technologies for future industries or about 50 MioECU". That is just over a third of the total European programme for the whole range of research which this document has in mind.
Although I am fully aware that this is, as one might describe it, a topping-up programme, a stimulating programme and supposedly added on to the existing national programmes, I cannot help but endorse the conclusion of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, which must be held widely in the House, that in relation to the scale of the challenge which we are meeting this is chickenfeed.
In relation to the kinds of discussions that we have been having in this House on whether there should be increased resources for Western Europe as a whole, what possible conclusion can we reach but that those resources are pitifully inadequate and will have to be increased, whether they are taken from the common agricultural policy or whether they are taken from elsewhere in the Community.
The clear and inescapable conclusion that I have reached since my return from Japan is that the West as a whole will not beat the challenge of the Pacific rim countries, unless we come to grips with the whole position and formulate our policies dramatically and fundamentally. This document supports that conclusion, and I am sad and sorry that at this late hour so few hon. Members and probably so few in the country have much idea of what any of us are saying.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is a pleasure once again to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd). It is a pleasure also to listen to his powerful indictment of the scale of the problem that confronts us and his views on the need to be able to do more than is proposed in the document. I apologise to the House for the fact that I shall be unable to stay for the full course of the debate.
I welcome the document, which contains the very things that we have always believed Europe is about. I well


recall that the last occasion on which we debated the new technologies was the day after we had come to something of an impasse in our negotiations with Europe. It is a happy coincidence that we are discussing this matter the day after we have had a better period of negotiation with Europe. Perhaps we are looking forward to this type of international co-operation within the EEC developing in the way in which we have always believed it should.
The document points out that in key areas there have been deficiencies of liaison and co-ordination between and within industrial sectors and between nations. Page 5 of the document states that there has been some duplication in the national efforts to promote these technologies. That is the best example of the way in which Europe can operate to draw together and co-ordinate the moves necessary to create the high technology base on research and development that will be essential, as the hon. Member for Havant so powerfully said, to the need to develop our industries.
I shall touch on, but I hope not repeat, the hon. Gentleman's points. We must remember that the United States and Japan contribute to those types of central coordination Government funding to the level of 100 per cent. of their research and development budgets.
I welcome the points made by the Under-Secretary of State about the implications of the new technology. I agree wholeheartedly that the application of that new technology should not be viewed only in relation to the sunrise industries. Perhaps—a recent report confirmed this—there will be a greater impact, as the hon. Gentleman said, in the application of new technologies to our basic traditional industries. How sad it is, therefore, that those comforting words seem to fall on deaf ears in the Government. The rhetoric of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and others is to the effect that the decline of our basic manufacturing industries can be taken with equanimity. That decline has been dramatic. I wish that there was evidence that the hon. Gentleman's views, which he has so comfortingly expressed, were more widely held by the Government, but that does not seem to be the case. We hear constant discussion about the fact that it does not matter that our basic traditional industrial base is withering away, because service industries are coming in to support them.
I agree entirely with the Minister that the traditional industries are not dinosaurs. The textile industry is a classic example of the way in which we have been able to use high technology to reduce unit costs and produce better, more up-market goods with greater added value. That is something to which we can look forward. As the hon. Members for Havant and for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) have said, this programme will have a limited impact and contribution but it will nevertheless make a start in that direction.
I wish specifically to welcome certain ingredients of the document. First, I welcome the recognition of the importance of the universities and research institutions in this context. Unhappily, they have not so far been able to make the contribution that they should to research and development application in industry. Again, one's welcome must be tempered with concern that the Government currently seem to be running down the importance and the funding of further education institutions. That is a great pity because they have an important part to play, as the document makes clear.
Secondly, we welcome the emphasis on pre-competitive research. That is vital because only in that way can we bring together the various parts of the industry so that the appropriate research can be carried out for exploitation at a later stage.

Mr. Butcher: I intervene at this stage because the hon. Gentleman has informed he House as a matter of courtesy that he will have to leave earlier than he had planned. In the debate between the service sector and the manufacturing sector, the House may not be aware of the fact that about 80 per cent. of the output of the manufacturing sector is internationally tradeable whereas only 18 per cent. of service sector activity is internationally tradeable. I hope that that information supplied by the Department will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman as it tends to clear one's mind a littel on the advantage to United Kingdom Limited. Nevertheless, the two sectors are complementary and I would not wish to understate the magnificent contribution made by the service sector in generating 280,000 jobs in the 12 months to December 1983.

Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the Minister will not misunderstand my point. The Government seem to have regarded the rundown of our traditional industrial base as something that can be regarded with a certain equanimity. The Secretary of State himself has frequently given that impression to the House. I cannot give chapter and verse, but it has certainly been suggested that we should not worry too much about the rundown of our traditional industries. The Opposition, however, regard the rundown as a matter of considerable concern. In this context, the words of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State are most comforting. One hopes that his colleagues at the Department will support his view that traditional industries such as shipbuilding, textiles, car manufacturing and so on can use the new technologies in the way that he described.
Thirdly, the concept of seed money will be usefully applied, but I put in a world. of caution on this. The concept is enshrined in the document on terms of a general rule to the effect that not more than 50 per cent. funding will apply. I hope that that general rule will be honoured more in the breach than in the observance in terms of the impact of the proposals on small and medium-sized industries.
Finally, the concept of added value is a key aspect of the document. The value of a piece of research and its application will be judged in terms of the value added to in the manufacturing process to which it applies. That is a very useful concept.
I wish now to deal briefly with our reservations about a few aspects of the document. First, I echo the reservation expressed by the hon. Member for Havant about the scale of the problem and the level of resources to be applied. With due deference to the hon. Member for Motherwell. South, I should point out that complaints about the level of resources to be applied by the EEC come strangely from the mouth of a member of a party whose leader complained only today that we were putting too much into Europe. There seems to be some contradiction there. I leave the matter there as others have made the point about scale more powerfully than I can.
In relation to small and medium-sized industries the document is perhaps too inflexible. I refer particularly to pages 13 and 14. It is said that small and medium-sized


industries may gain access to the funding in several ways, but I believe that each expresses pious hopes rather than realities. They can do so, first,
through co-operation with large firms which already use SMEs—small and medium-sized enterprises—
as sub-contractors".
That is a nice thought, but in reality one of the factors that is coming into play with the new technology is that because they now give large firms the capacity for small-batch production, it is precisely sub-contractors in the small and medium-size enterprises that are most at risk. The idea that they will be able to get access to funding by using the large firms for which they are sub-contractors will not prove effective.
Secondly, the document recommends that the small firms can gain access
through the involvement of co-operative or collective organisations".
Again that is a pious hope, but the reality is that small and medium-size enterprises largely expend their energies on surviving and prospering, and do not have much time to gather themselves into effective co-operatives. Thirdly, the document suggests that they might gain access
through the involvement of and/or communication with universities".
Again, smalland medium-size industries do not have the time for decent liaison projects with universities. Therefore, again that is more a pious hope that an idea that would achieve anything. Finally, the document suggests that the small firms might gain access.
through information provided by trade associations, chambers of commerce, government bodies, etc.
I suspect that those mechanisms will not prove adequate for providing small and medium-size enterprises with access to this facility in the way that they should. I have always believed that those enterprises, particularly in high technology, need positive discrimination so that they can survive. The document is clear about the way that their contributions could be realised. It says that in many areas they are capable of research and have more innovative structures and brains in them. I hoped that the document would give much more specific advantages to small and medium-size enterprises. I fear that if the scheme comes to fruition, the same will happen as is happening with the Alvey progamme and, to a certain extent, will happen with the ESPRIT programme—the small and medium-size enterprises will be left with the crumbs from the table rather than participate in the way that they should.
I should like to ask the Minister two other brief questions. Should not industries in decline or in trouble be given special consideration for projects? The document states on page 6 that
the fact that an industry is in trouble or declining is not in itself a justification for Community assistance.
Those industries should not be eligible as a result of decline, but on the other hand should they not receive advice to assist them to know where the new technologies might be applied to lift them out of decline?
Secondly, what right of access to information will enterprises that choose not to contribute to a project have? Will all enterprises within the Community be required to contribute to projects pertaining to them? I suspect not, from the tone of the document, but it would be useful to have some clarification on that matter. What will the

access to information for industry be in general? That is a key area, which again has impact on small and medium-size enterprises.
With those reservations, we give a guarded welcome to the document because it seems, as other hon. Members have said, to be at least a first step along a road where I hope we shall travel further. If we continue to build on that initiative, it will, I hope, have the impact that we so desperately need to make our industries, particularly our traditional industries, competitive with others elsewhere in the world.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: It is timely to hold the debate in the wake of the settlement of the long-standing dispute over the European budget, when the nations of Europe might now give their minds more fully to exploiting the real potential of Europe in industrial development. However, I fully accept and recognise the earlier comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) deprecating the fact that this important debate is taking place so late at night. I wonder whether such treatment of important European issues lies at the heart of the apathy shown by the British electorate in the recent European Parliamentary elections. When the important aspects of Europe are debated, it is important that they are seen to be debated, and appreciated by the public. That is the only way in which the public can get a reasonable perspective of the importance of Europe in our affairs.
The analysis in the report of the weakness of basic technological research in Europe is devastating and accurate. I could not match the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, who emphasised that point over and over again in different areas of research. The only way forward is by co-ordinating local British research initiatives and coupling them, where appropriate, with European progress. It is because I want that progress to be achieved, and because it is so important to our industries, that I am concerned about the detail lying behind the fine principles enunciated in the report.
I declare an interest. I have a strong constituency and professional interest in the engineering, clothing and steel industries, in university research and its exploitation, and as a vice-chairman of the Small Business Bureau, in small business.
The importance of new technology—as has been made plain in the debate—in creating and protecting jobs will have its greatest impact in our traditional industries. It is important to encourage the development of new industries, but it is to our traditional industries that we must look when we consider matters that will have a serious impact on employment. We must be concerned about the development of new technology and its effect on our traditional industries.
The report identifies one of the most fundamental problems facing this country—the gap between research and the exploitation of that research. All too often, bright ideas developed in our universities are exploited abroad because of lack of interest and enhusiasm in this country. It is fair to say that in recent times there has been much improvement in that area, but all who are involved in the universities know that there is still a haemorrhage of good British ideas which are not taken up at home for the benefit of our people and jobs.
The highest priority must be massive Government involvement in the field, but the criteria for European involvement are also important. There is little purpose in duplicating research. If a programe can be carried out at home, that is where it should be carried out. The criteria set out in the report for the European programme are clear, and avoid such duplication. It states that the projects that will be undertaken will have to be limited to those where national endeavour is insufficient on its own. That insufficiency has two different forms. There is technical insufficiency, where the resources of different institutes and different countries must be combined to achieve a breakthrough. Such cross-border pollination is to be welcomed.
Very often, the limitations to national programmes of research and exploitation are financial. While research funding is inevitaby cheaper than exploitation funding, the amounts of money to be devoted to this programme are so trivial in comparison with its scope that it is almost laughable. It has been described as seedcorn. It has also been described as chickenfeed. When one considers the range of projects across which the £25 million or £26 million a year will be spread, and the expensive secretariat and organisation that will be necessary, what will it amount to?
I shall not emulate the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for Havant hammered home that point, but it lies at the heart of the comments that many hon. Members have made. In comparison with Japan and the United States, Europe is not trying hard enough. It is not putting enough of its resources into this important area.
To adopt an expression from the clothing industry—which is one of the recipients of the programme—we must cut our coat according to our cloth. Either we increase the money to match the projects, or cut the projects to match the money. If not, we shall find that we have nothing at all.
The concept of a European-wide basic technology matchmaker is one of the most important in the report. If we are to succeed, we must be realistic. Proper funding is part of that realism, as is proper staffing. One of the essential ingredients of successful British research programmes has been a combination of technological know-how and commercial nous directing them. The two are important if the technology and the research are to succeed. The report talks merely of the numbers of people who are to be recruited in different grades, but when it deals with the areas of technology to which people are being recruited, the dual aspects to achieve success should be borne in mind.
There is another aspect of realism on which the report is almost silent. Indeed, I have found no reference to it. I refer to the method by which the exploitation of the basic research is to be undertaken. What will happen to the patents and licences that will flow from the work? It is critical to the success of the work that we undertake to develop the vehicle by which the research is carried forward into industry. I have been critical of the role of the British Technology Group as a monopoly channel of publicly funded research in the United Kingdom. Fortunately, that has changed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure us that we shall not repeat, on a European scale, the mistake that we made with BTG.
We need to know what is on offer to participating companies. If companies and universities are to put in half of the funding, what will they get out of the programmes?

Will they have an exclusive share in the immediate fruits of the research? Will the universities get some financial recompense for providing people and facilities for the programmes, which have commercial exploitation and development at their heart? Those are important matters that should not be left until the research has been completed. They should be tackled early.
I also welcome the report's emphasis on small business participation. The high-flown phrases and noble sentiments about the importance of small businesses at least have the merit of being right. But by what mechanism will the participation of small businesses be effected? The hon. Member for Yeovil. (Mr. Ashdown) dealt with the four routes that were described in the report and expressed much scepticism about each of them. I do not wish to repeat what he said, but I share his scepticism. If we are to be true to the high ideals that have been expressed, sooner or later we shall have to adopt the pattern that has developed in the United states and say, "If public money goes to an area that we believe is important for small businesses, a proporation of the money will have to be reserved for small businesses." A significant incentive would be given to larger companies which participate in the research programme if they knew that their proposals were more likely to be successful if they had a strong small business element. Without that, we shall see no more than lip service for the principle of small businesses. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to 750 applications from Britain under these proposals. I think that he said that half came from industry. It would be interesting to know how many came from small businesses.
We are only 16 years sway from the 21st century and we are making decisions that will determine the strength of our industrial base in that century. I am sure that the way forward is through research and development rather than subsidy. The initiative that we are discussing provides us with an important opportunity that we must seize. We must ensure that our centres of excellence, our universities and our companies participate in the programme to the fullest extent. If they do not, we shall be the technological peasants of the 21st century.

Mr. Richard Page: I entered the Chamber intent more on listening to the debate than contributing to it, but the more that I have read into the communication from the Commission, the more doubts have been raised in my mind. Having listened to every speech in the debate, my doubts have been reinforced. Apart from adding a few buzz words to our vocabulary—in addition to ESPRIT and ALVEY, we have BRITE and ANT—the effectiveness of the proposed measures is open to doubt.
I do not want to be thought to be against research and development, but it seems that the project is overly ambitious for the funds that are being suggested. I shall not refer to each individual project, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) has done that most effectively. I merely say that each one is a major research project in itself. I know that there is the multiplier hope and the thought that each grant will be seedcorn that will act as a catalyst, but 170 ecu over four years means that Britain will have about £4·5 million to invest or to use as research and development money each year, which is not


enough. There has been no mention of reductions for administration costs. These costs have taken an overly large slice of previous projects.
INMOS may not be an especially good example, but it has cost £16 million a year so far. Should we have adopted what is known as the Japanese laser beam technique and used £4·5 million to pick off one subject only rather than spreading the money so thinly?
The communication makes most impressive reading. It is right to draw attention to the role that the more traditional industries can play in contributing to our gross national product. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State raised that important point, and it should be emphasised time and again.
Given the available funds and what it is said the project will tackle, our credulity is being strained, unless my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is to say that additional funds will be made available to keep the project going. I see the project bringing together the researches of universities and industries and attempting to reduce the duplication and overlapping. That will help us to go some way towards that which has already been achieved by the Japanese and the United States. Their research efforts are well co-ordinated and they therefore have much higher efficiency, which is reflected in the dissemination of their results.
I am glad that there is to be an attempt to put a commercial front on the work that is to be undertaken. It seems that it will not be research and development for the sake of an interesting intellectual exercise, which has sometimes been the approach of the more academic institutions.
Consideration must be given to the commercial interests of the companies that will undertake the work and whether the Commission will bring about the international groupings which have been mentioned. There is likely to be a problem with preferential access for foreground information and foreground patents. That is an area of potential excitement. I hope that the ground rules will be made clear to the companies participating in the projects before the research starts.
My final point was raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), and concerns the small and medium-sized enterprises. I agree with the true words in the report about the value of small businesses, and will not dispute them. However, there is a problem about how we should channel these resources and this research work into small businesses. In 1982, the problem was recognised in the United States and Small Business Innovation Research was set up. That research body was set aside from the larger agencies. It is anticipated that between now and 1987 up to $1·4 billion will be paid to that area of research. I contrast that figure with the £4·5 million that will come into the United Kingdom.
Any contribution to research and development is most welcome, so I welcome the measures. I shall make sure that we do not overreach ourselves. I hope that that comment will be taken on board and mentioned at the meeting in two days time. I hope that special arrangements will be made to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses can participate and make the true and genuine contribution of which they are capable.

Mr. Butcher: It is customary to begin with the remark, "We have had an interesting debate." All hon. Members agree that we are discussing a potent and well-reasoned document, which has considerable merits. We also agree that we wish to see such debates given a higher profile in the allocation of the House's time. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd), who pleaded so passionately about that, will understand that I cannot advise the Leader of the House or the House itself how to deploy its time. His impassioned comments are, however, on record, and I have considerable sympathy with him, as do many Labour Members.
The hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said that resources are a tricky problem because we must ensure that we get value for money in Europe. A succession of speakers may have understated the level of resourcing in that the programme will either directly spend or lever in total £200 million of spending over the four year period. Therefore, we are talking not about £25 million, but about £50 million a year.
We are talking about a research and development effort which is taking place in addition to extant programmes, and about the gap. Fundamental research is going on in our universities, public sector facilities and some industrial companies. At the other end of the equation there is application research, which is more market-oriented. The document drives for the gap, and tries to establish a link between the two and to build bridges between the market place and the laboratory. I hope that in future deliberations my right hon. and hon. Friends will stress that it is additional incremental expenditure.
As a general comparison, the United Kingdom tends to devote as much of its GNP, in percentage terms, to fundamental research and development as does its major competitor in the Pacific basin, and the United States.
With the statistical badinage that has been going on this evening, may I place before the House another rather interesting statistic by way of stressing the need to take another look at the "sunshine" industries? The mechanical engineering sector is turning over £16 billion; the electrical engineering sector is turning over £8 billion and the electronic engineering sector is turning over £6 billion per annum. The nation's bread and butter is still very much in what we have hitherto called the traditional sectors of engineering, which in their own way have been conducting a quiet revolution. It is my contention that these sunshine industries are rapidly becoming high-tech industries. They are applying intellect to their production processes.

Dr. Bray: The Minister said that we spend as much money on fundamental research as the countries of the Pacific basin. I do not know what he means by fundamental research. The figures provided by NEDO and quoted in the book "UK Science Policy" edited by Mr. Goldsmith and published recently give the expenditure on civil research and development per head as £47 in the United Kingdom, £60 in Japan, £73 in Germany and £74 in the United States. We are an equal laggard with France, behind all other industrial countries.

Mr. Butcher: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the huge American defence research programme has been mentioned in the House previously, and we have been told how that has had a tremendous spin-off into all types of civil programmes, not least the development of their still


burgeoning computer industry. We also have a significant defence research and development spend. It is sometimes criticised by the hon. Gentleman's friends, but it also has a spin-off. We must look at those two elements of our research and development programme to reach a total percentage figure of GNP devoted to research.
The ANT initiative does not relate just to the clothing industry. It includes the footwear, furnishing and leather goods industries. If one adds those four industries together and adds textiles, one finds that there is a significant proportion of employment in that sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant is the chairman of the all-party committee on information technology. He is a major exponent of the benefits of information technology, in particular, and of the application of high technology procedures in general. I listened carefully, as usual, to what he said, particularly his comments about lasers, joining techniques, CAM, polymers and membranes. I take issue with him on one minor point only. I have also just returned from an investigative tour, and I am bound to say that the United Kingdom is very much out in front with CAD-CAM. Many of our American friends will acknowledge that many of the basic breakthroughs in CAD-CAM techniques have occurred, and are still occurring, in the United Kingdom. I see CAD-CAM being used more in our medium-sized companies than in the United States, where I found that it was used much more in the larger companies. I believe that we have a bit to shout about here, and we may be a little ahead of the race with its application.
With regard to BRITE and its funding, it is a matter of building on existing activities and building on deficiencies in the gap to make the relationship between market and laboratory a little stronger.
The hon. Member for Yeovil and a number of other hon. Members talked about the niggardly nature of the funding. One should remember that in the United Kingdom, as a complementary activity from public funds, we have a £220 million support for innovation programmes. Quite a bit of that, under what we used to call the product and process development scheme, goes into the existing and established sunshine industries.
There is no controversy or confrontation between the manufacturing and service sectors. We see them as complementary, and we have all agreed tonight that the service sector will need a strong manufacturing base if it is to survive, thrive and provide additional jobs.
I do not go along win the point of the hon. Member for Yeovil about special r rovision for declining industries. The factor we look for is whether a company—not an industry—is declining or is prepared to fight back. Many industries may be declining, but companies within them may well be thriving. These are the people whom we want to see participating in this sort of programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) again voiced his concern that we were not discussing this major issue in prime time. He made some telling points on the efficacy or otherwise, and the volume, of expenditure on research and development in Europe. I hope that he has gained some reassurance from my earlier remarks.
My hon. Friend also made an interesting point about the method of dissemination of the industrial property rights. We shall take on board v. hat he has said, and that will be borne in mind when we put our case in Luxembourg on Friday. We shall also bar in mind his point on srnall businesses, which I shall not relate again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), the Government Whip, is in his place. If I interpret his presence correctly, he is saying in the most coded form possible that it is time to press on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) spoke clearly of commercial interests and small and medium-sized enterprises. He is in happy alliance with my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet in championing the cause of small businesses.
I commend page 39 of the report, which deals with this proposition. The report has made a pretty good fist of welcoming the small to medium-sized enterprises. It is not too often that we see a document endorsing the activities of these companies so clearly and with such strength.
With those remarks, I accordingly take note of the comments of the House, which will be borne in mind when these issues are raised in Luxembourg on Friday.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8018/83 on a Research Action Programme on Industrial Technologies and the supplementary explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry dated 14th May 1984; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that Community research in this area should be beneficial in terms of policy objectives of the Community and the United Kingdom.

Dr. W. W. Rankin

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

Mr. Brynmor John: One of the most important rights of any citizen is to have his case raised on the Floor of the House. That is why, on behalf of my constituent Dr. Rankin, I am grateful for the opportunity of raising this subject on this occasion.
In January 1979, Dr. Rankin applied for the post of chief technician in the mining department of the university of Zambia. Instead, he was persuaded to apply for the post of lecturer in the department of mining in the university of Guyana. In a week he was appointed to that position.
Throughout that time Dr. Rankin was in the employment of the university of Leeds, but, apart from an initial period of two or three months, the whole of his contract was intended to be performed in the university of Guyana.
Such secondments seem to confer benefits on all three parties, or ought to. Clearly, it is of benefit to the individual. It also confers a great benefit on the country to which the individual is sent, particularly in so practical a matter as the science of mining. This is especially so of a country such as Guyana, given its needs. It also confers a great benefit on the donor country responsible for effecting the secondment.
It is my contention that in this case there appears to have been no benefit to the individual concerned, and that whatever benefit might have accrued from it has been lost. In all his subsequent dealings, Dr. Rankin has been extremely upset about this fact and has sought to rectify it, but he has also been fired by a determination that no one else should go through his experience.
This Minister more than any other will be aware that Guyana has undergone and is still undergoing a period of severe economic and social difficulty. Despite that, Dr. Rankin managed to found a department of mining in the university, and to recruit a member of staff who would ensure continuity in the department. Moreover, at the expiry of the contract, he was prepared to return to Guyana for a further contract. Nevertheless, at the end of the three year fixed appointment, the contract was not renewed. Dr. Rankin has returned to this country and, not unjustifiably, he feels that his full remuneration under the contract has not been met, and that has not been satisfactorily explained. He has not been offered a succeeding appointment.
The problem of Dr. Rankin's remuneration is a combination of superannuation payments and the gratuity paid to him by the university. On taking up the contract, he was required to join the university superannuation scheme. For his share of the scheme, he contributed 6·25 per cent. of his salary. According to the letter by which the appointment was confirmed on 25 May 1979 from the registrar of Leeds university:
In addition, arrangements have been made for the 12 per cent. Employer's Contribution to be paid to this university while you are in Guyana.
He was told that further details would be sent on to him in due course, but none ever appeared.
Despite that clear reference in the letter of appointment, a later letter dated August 1982 gave a different version of the facts. That said that at the time of his appointment

in January, it had been agreed that the employer's contribution was to be payable out of the gratuities that he received from the university of Guyana and the Inter-University Council.
It is remarkable that, if that agreement had been arrived at in January, the letter of appointment in May made no reference to it, and that the first reference to that understanding was made in the letter of August 1982, after Dr. Rankin had returned to this country. It is made even more curious because the gratuities that Dr. Rankin was due to receive as a result of his service in Guyana were 6,772 Guyanese dollars, which with an exchange rate of 5·2 Guyanese dollars to the pound means, gross, between £1,250 and £1,300. The employer's contribution to the superannuation scheme came to £4,707, so even on the gross total, Dr. Rankin could not meet the employer's contribution through that payment. If one goes further, however, one finds that half of the gratuities that Dr. Rankin was due to receive were taxed in Guyana at a rate of 70 per cent., which meant that the dollars that he received through his gratuities yielded him exactly £192.
Dr. Rankin feels, and having looked at the figures, I agree the idea that he was supposed to pay the employer's contribution out of his gratuities incredible. The matter is compounded by the fact that Dr. Rankin strenuously denies ever having received any gratuity as a fixed sum at the end of the three years or, as is said in one of the letters of correspondence, at the end of each year. Despite the fact that he raised this in a letter as early as November 1982, followed by a letter in 1983, he has never been shown adequate documentary proof to allow him to acknowledge that he was paid. He has received no proof that those sums were paid.
The intertwined matters of superannuation and gratuity are of the utmost importance to my constituent. Two years after the completion of the contract, it is time that he be given an explanation to clear the matter up to his satisfaction.
Secondly, my constituent is aggrieved by the fact that, despite having a great deal to contribute as an experienced mining engineer, he has not been offered any further employment. He felt that his services were going to be sought because, in the initial letter to which I have referred, it was stated that he might be expected to work elsewhere if the Guyana project terminated prematurely. In the event, the contract ran its full term. During it, Miss Priscilla Wingate-Saul, one of the officers of the British Council, wrote to Mr. Irvine of the university of Guyana concerning the continuation of Dr. Rankin's contract. It was understood by the university of Guyana, as a result of that approach, that Dr. Rankin would be returning to the university for the autumn term, because the examination timetable for the end of the year in question was fixed to enable him to do that. Dr. Rankin would obviously have concluded, and did conclude, that he was going to be offered more than one term of contract, but that did not happen.
After serving out the remainder of his term in the form of leave, Dr. Rankin has been left unemployed. As a man over the age of 60, he is faced with insurmountable difficulties in obtaining a job of any kind, let alone a job of equivalent standing in this country.
To sum up this point, I find it incredible that someone like Dr. Rankin, who had gone abroad to teach and, therefore, to benefit that country and our country as the


donor country, could at the end of his contract be left in such total confusion as to his entitlement under the contract, and left on the shelf.
For the future, I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the quality of information given about any contractual obligations is a great deal clearer for the person who has served a contract, and that efforts will be made to utilise every one of those lecturers so that their talents are harnessed to avoid the difficulties that may occur by their not being re-engaged for a second term.
My final point is possibly the most worrying of all. People like Dr. Rankin go abroad to a variety of material conditions in a variety of countries. Often the countries that need most help are those in which those conditions are the most difficult. I make no complaint about that. It is right that it should be so. However, I have to raise the question of how much longer the Government can expect people to fulfil that sort of contract when, at the end of their term, they have no claim to further employment. In addition, they apparently have no recourse to redundancy payments or rights, and no check upon actions leading to the termination of their contracts which, had they occurred in similar conditions in the United Kingdom, might well have led to awards of compensation. I imagine that the Minister will say that in the letter of appointment Dr. Rankin specifically waived, as did others, his rights under the redundancy payments and unfair dismissal legislation. I again stress that he was an employee of the university of Leeds at the time.
Can the Minister confirm that Dr. Rankin is now left without any legal recourse in respect of this contractual matter? If so, is that right? Is not the waiving of such rights against the public interest, and so possibly void in law? If not, should not it be taken into consideration in the terms offered to lecturers who give up careers, or who take up new short-term careers abroad, particularly as inflation, the cost of accommodation, physical shortages and so on in the country in which they serve are likely to undermine the adequacy of the salary during the term of their appointment?
When someone, as in the case of Dr. Rankin, suffers because of the inadequacy of those contractual arrangements and finds that his career prospects and health are at risk as a result of his having fulfilled them, we should insist that the parent body in this country recognises that fact, possibly by an ex gratia payment. In the good name of the country, Dr. Rankin should be offered such an ex gratia payment. I hope that the Minister can give us hope that people will never again find themselves in the position of Dr. Rankin, and that the hon. Gentleman will agree, in justice to Dr. Rankin, to have him recompensed for the bitter and hurtful experience that he has undergone during the fulfilment of that contract.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has asked me to explain that he is leading the United Kingdom delegation to the ministerial negotiating conference for the new Lomé convention in Luxembourg, and to apologise to the House that he is therefore unable to be here tonight to reply personally to the representations made so eloquently by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). As the hon. Gentleman recognises, the official connection between his

constituent and his admittedly serious problem and the Overseas Development Administration rests on the payment of a supplement to Dr. Rankin additional to his salary in respect of his services in Guyana. Neither the ODA nor the British Ceuncil has any locus in respect of the contract of employment between the university of Guyana and Dr. Rankin.
It may be helpful if I first explain that an important objective of the official aid programme is to assist the development of skilled manpower resources in the rnany countries that receive British aid—a point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd. Many Governments overseas are very willing—indeed, eager—to secure the services of British nationals to work in their public services, and universities and similar institutions. Such people are hired on contract by the overseas employer, be it the Government or a university, and they are paid the local rate for the job. In order to facilitate the employment of British people under such contracts, the ODA is willing to provide a supplement to the officer's local salary and some other benefits, such as a gratuity and allowances for children's education, so that, wherever possible, the total net emoluments paid in respect of the overseas appointment are on a par with the net salary the officer should expect to get from employment in Britain.
The British Government are unable to offer supplementary benefits to each and every British national employed in the public services overseas, but there are continuing discussions with each overseas Government involved about their plans for the development of a coherent manpower policy, and it is, of course, the overseas Government in each case who are best able to say which particular post held by British officers should be supplemented, in accordance with their relative priority and importance in their economic and social development policies.
In the specific case which the hon. Gentleman has raised, Dr. Rankin's service as a staff member of the university of Guyana was arranged on behalf of that university by the Inter-University Council for Higher Education Overseas—the IUC. The IUC ceased to exist as such in 1981 and its work in support of higher education overseas was taken up by the British Council. The IUC though an independent body representative of United Kingdom universities, derived most of its operational funds from the Votes of the Overseas Development Administration, and present support of higher education links, through the British Council, continues to be provided to a large extent by the ODA.
The hon. Gentleman has had considerable correspondence with the higher education division of the British Council about this case. I am sorry that he should have felt that at one point he did rot have full and frank replies to his letters. I understand that he subsequently had a meeting with the controller of the division at which, from the record that I have seen, there was a comprehensive explanation of Dr. Rankin's position and an assurance given that the British Council, as successor to the IUC, had fully discharged it obligations to Dr. Rankin.
Dr. Rankin was appointed by the university of Guyana as a senior lecturer in mining engineering in the faculty of technology—

Mr. John: I apologise for intervening because this is an Adjournment debate, but it is simply not true to say that he was appointed by the university of Guyana. The first sentence of the letter of appointment reads:
I have pleasure in offering you a supernumerary fixed term appointment as a Lecturer in the Department of Milling and Mineral Sciences at the University of Leeds.

Mr. Whitney: That was part of the arrangement. The basic contract was with the university of Guyana. As I understand it, the arrangement was for a three-month attachment before and after at the university of Leeds. That is the origin. If I may continue, I shall reach that particular point.
Dr. Rankin was paid a salary at the top of the senior lecturer scale in Guyanese dollars, with other allowances and a gratuity of 10 per cent. of basic salary. At the same time, in 1979 the IUC arranged for Dr. Rankin to be appointed to a supernumerary post as lecturer in the department of mining and mineral sciences at Leeds university for three and a half years from 1 May 1979 to 31 October 1982. Under this arrangement Dr. Rankin was enabled to be employed at Leeds for about three months before he went to Guyana and for a similar period on his return. Employment at Leeds was funded by the ODA, through the IUC, and latterly the British Council.
In support of Dr. Rankin's overseas appointment, the IUC undertook to pay him a salary supplement, for the reasons I gave a moment ago, of about £7,000 a year for the duration of his overseas service and terminal leave, plus a gratuity of 10 per cent. of that supplement as a contribution towards maintaining superannuation arrangements.
Dr. Rankin was thus, for the period from 1 May 1979 to 31 October 1982, on contract to the two universities but not to the British Council nor Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman has made, on behalf of Dr. Rankin, a number of representations in respect of that period of service. As I understand them, they basically fall into two groups: first, the question of remuneration and the fact that Dr. Rankin was not paid to maintain his superannuation arrangements and did not receive his gratuity from Guyana; and, secondly, that he was given a promise by the British Council of future and further employment.
Let me take these points in turn. Dr. Rankin, as a university lecturer, was required to join the universities' superannuation scheme to which both the employer and the employee contribute. While he was employed directly by Leeds for about six months, that university paid the employer's share against reimbursement from the British Council. It was made clear to Dr. Rankin in writing that while he was employed by the university of Guyana he was expected to transmit the employer's contribution from the gratuity provided by the university of Guyana in lieu of pension, and from the supplement paid to him by the IUC, or by the British Council from 1981. That was made clear to him in letters in 1979.
I also understand that Dr. Rankin's own share—the employee's share, which was, of course, his own responsibility—has been paid, either directly or by deduction, with his agreement, from his salary at Leeds in the autumn of 1982.
The British Council has met fully its undertaking to provide Dr. Rankin with a supplement during his service in Guyana, plus a gratuity, all tax free. Dr. Rankin has

these resources, coupled with his gratuity from Guyana, to draw on towards payment of the employer's share of the pension arrangements.
The British Council is, moreover, able to make an additional payment to meet the balance of the employer's share to take account of local Guyanese taxation of part of Dr. Rankin's overseas gratuity. No money is owed by the British Council to Dr. Rankin and no payment has been withheld from him. On the second point, the British Council had a categorical assurance in 1982 from the university authorities in Guyana that full payment of salary and gratuity had been made to Dr. Rankin.
With regard to the suggestion that the British Council has gone back on some particular promise to Dr. Rankin of further employment, let me repeat that he left Guyana after three years, in mid-August 1982, and returned to employment by Leeds. During 1981 the possibility of an extension of Dr. Rankin's contract by the university of Guyana was mooted at the initiative of that university itself. In response, the British Council indicated to the university of Guyana its willingness in principle to continue salary supplementation if indeed that university were to take a decision to renew or extend Dr. Rankin's contract. In the event he was not offered an extension or renewal by the university of Guyana. The reasons for that are entirely a matter for that university.
Since there was no further contract of employment by an overseas employer, the question of a salary supplement by the council in association with such a contract fell away. So that there is no possibility of misunderstanding, I should reiterate that at no time did the British Council give any undertaking to Dr. Rankin that he would be provided with a further contract of employment.
The question of living conditions in Guyana has also been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. As in many countries overseas, British expatriates face different conditions from those they are used to here—in respect, for example, of living conditions and the high cost of familiar foodstuffs. They were among the factors taken into account when it was decided to offer salary supplementation in Dr. Rankin's case.
Much as I regret it, we could not help Dr. Rankin with additional support. I have to remind the House that the British Government's obligation to him was in respect of salary supplement and gratuity, although I might mention that he did receive a retrospective increase in his rate of supplementation.
I understand the very clear case which the hon. Gentleman has made and I appreciate the courteous way in which he has put forward the problems encountered by Dr. Rankin, but I have to say that, having looked at the case very carefully, I am absolutely ready to accept that the Overseas Development Administration fully discharged all the responsibilities that it had encountered and undertaken in respect of Dr. Rankin and that at all times the conditions relevant to the contract of employment were made clear to Dr. Rankin.
I believe that the arrangements which are in place are satisfactory and that the concerns which the hon. Gentleman has expressed for the general arrangements for overseas experts are, indeed, not well founded. The Overseas Development Administration has long experience in this matter and fulfils its obligations in an appropriate manner. I share the concern for the problems which Dr. Rankin is now experiencing, but I am convinced that the Overseas Development Administration has indeed


discharged its obligations to Dr. Rankin fully and has at all times sought to answer diligently the various concerns that Dr. Rankin and the hon. Member have expressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past One o'clock.